The Complainant is Statoil ASA of Stavanger, Norway, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Sharron Struk of Kenora, Ontario, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with R (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 26, 2014. On September 26, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 23, 2014.
The Center appointed Richard Hill as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant owns the registered trademark STATOIL, with rights dating back to 1974. The mark is well known and is used to market energy products and services around the world, and in particular in Europe.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2014.
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise granted permission to the Respondent to use its mark
There is no website corresponding to the disputed domain name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it is an international energy company with extensive operations worldwide. It has been in business for over 40 years and is one of the leading providers of energy products and services.
The Complainant states that it owns the trademark STATOIL which was first registered in 1974 and has since been registered around the world. That mark is well known.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant's mark, in the sense of the Policy. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, nor is it licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's mark. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is she generally known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website. Thus it can be assumed that the Respondent's intent for registering the disputed domain name has been either to sell it to the Complainant, or to use it otherwise for financial gain, for example by attracting Internet users to a website that would misleadingly appear to be related to the Complainant.
However, states the Complainant, an e-mail server has been configured for the disputed domain name. That is not a bona fide offering of goods and services: it can only create confusion as to the identity of the originator of the e-mails coming from that server. Indeed, such e-mails could be used for spam or phishing.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in the sense of the Policy. The Complainant's mark is well known worldwide and there is no way in which it could be used legitimately. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear to the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant's mark, because it contains the mark and merely adds the descriptive term "europe" to form the disputed domain name. See Moncler S.r.l. v. Shuangying Chen,WIPO Case No. D2011-0416; see also Dell Computer Corporation v. MTO C.A. and Diabetes Education Long Life,WIPO Case No. D2002-0363. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not have any license or other authorization to use the Complainant's mark or to sell its products. The Respondent appears to intend to use the disputed domain name for e-mail, but not to resolve to a website.
Where a respondent has registered and used a domain name in bad faith (see the discussion below), that respondent cannot be found to have made a bona fide offering of goods and services, see The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Azra Khan,WIPO Case No. D2002-0701; see also AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian,WIPO Case No. D2000-0937. Thus, it cannot be said that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel holds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not responded. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name because of the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and that the Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind.
But the Panel must still determine whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Since there is no direct evidence of what the Respondent intends to do with the disputed domain name, nor on how it will be using the e-mails associated with the disputed domain name, the Panel will have to make inferences from the available facts.
The guiding precedent is Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. See also paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"). Although there are significant differences in the facts of the present case and the facts of the Telstra case, nevertheless the inferences made by the panel in the Telstra case do appear relevant for the present case. (The reasoning and wording below are directly derived from those of the Telstra case.)
In particular, this Panel, as did the Telstra panel, must determine whether, in the circumstances of this particular case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith. It concludes that it does. The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are:
(i) the Complainant's trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known,
(ii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name,
(iii) it is difficult to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, an infringement of the Complainant's rights under trademark law, or a violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In light of these particular circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Richard Hill
Sole Panelist
Date: November 4, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy