Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. CHLEO TEMPLE
Claim Number: FA1705001731844
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jenny T. Slocum of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, U.S.A. Respondent is CHLEO TEMPLE ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevronfund.com>, registered with eNom, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 16, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 16, 2017.
On May 17, 2017, eNom, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <chevronfund.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On May 23, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 12, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chevronfund.com. Also on May 23, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, together with its parent company, Chevron Corporation, is a large global integrated energy company, with over 40,000 employees worldwide. Complainant has used the CHEVRON mark since 1935, and claims that it is a famous mark under U.S. and international trademark law. The mark is registered in the United States.
The disputed domain name <chevronfund.com> was registered through a privacy registration service in September 2016. The domain name resolves to a portal page containing links to various content, including links labeled "Chevron." Previously, the domain name resolved to a fraudulent website that described itself as "Chevron Funds Company Limited's online investment platform" and contained numerous references to Complainant, creating the false impression of association with Complainant. Complainant states that it has no connection with Respondent and has not authorized any of Respondent's uses of its mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHEVRON mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.").
The disputed domain name <chevronfund.com> is identical to Complainant's registered CHEVRON trademark, but for the addition of the generic term "fund" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Pentium Fund, D2009-0156 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2009) (finding <pentiumfund.com> confusingly similar to PENTIUM); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Andre Schneider / DomCollect AG, FA 1446021 (Forum July 5, 2012) (finding <chevronpetroleum.com> confusingly similar to CHEVRON). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's famous mark. It was registered without Complainant's authorization and has been used for a fraudulent website and subsequently for a pay-per-click link portal, in both instances seeking to profit by creating confusion with Complainant. Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered and has used a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark to create and presumably profit from confusion with Complainant. Respondent's conduct is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Co. v. Shilei, FA 1724071 (Forum Apr. 26, 2017) (finding bad faith in use of domain names for pay-per-click link pages); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator, FA 1438289 (Forum May 16, 2012) (same); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Chev Pet, FA 1697420 (Forum Nov. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith in use of domain name for website mimicking Complainant's site to promote fraudulent services). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevronfund.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 16, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page