Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. dcw group investments
Claim Number: FA1204001438162
Complainant is Chevron Intellectual Property LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Bryce J. Maynard of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is dcw group investments (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chevroncareers.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 5, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 5, 2012.
On April 6, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <chevroncareers.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 12, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chevroncareers.com. Also on April 12, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 8, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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
1) Complainant owns and has used the CHEVRON mark since 1935.
2) Complainant has registered the CHEVRON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683 registered February 14, 1939).
3) The CHEVRON mark is arbitrary and famous and is therefore entitled to the broadest protection under the law.
4) Respondent’s <chevroncareers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark, only adding the generic term “careers” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
5) Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website featuring third-party links to websites pertaining to oil and gas related services job postings, many of which compete directly with Complainant’s employment offerings.
6) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and is using the domain name for commercial gain.
7) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by using the domain name for its commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Complainant it has established its rights in the CHEVRON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 364,683 registered February 14, 1939) under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark holdings with the USPTO. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <chevroncareers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark, only adding the generic term “careers” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” See Valero Energy Corp. v. Web Advertising Corp., No. D2008-0407 (WIPO May 13, 2008) (finding Respondent's <valerocareers.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's VALERO mark, adding only the descriptive term "careers.").
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use the CHEVRON mark. The Panel takes notice that the domain name’s WHOIS information identifies “dcw group investments” as the registrant, which is dissimilar from the disputed domain name. Based upon the above, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant contends, and this Panel accepts, that Respondent is resolving the disputed domain name to a website featuring third-party links to employment in the oil and gas industry. Complainant asserts, and this Panel accepts, that such links resolve to its direct competitors in the industry. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii))
The Panel infers that, given the fame of Complainant’s mark, the Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when it registered the <chevroncareers.com> domain name. Registration of a domain name, despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D 2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus, respondent registered the domain name in bath faith).
Respondent likely receives commercial profit from the various companies and websites that have links on the resolving website. Some of those links direct Internet users to Complainant’s competitors that offer similar employment services and opportunities. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is using the <chevroncareers.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii))
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chevroncareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: May 22, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page