The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. of Houston, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Polsinelli PC Law firm, United States.
The Respondent is Jon Hall of Ruckersville, Virginia, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Stormbringer, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 7, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s contact details.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 8, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 28, 2017. In the absence of receipt of a response, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 29, 2017.
The Center received a Supplemental Filing from the Complainant on April 5, 2017, referencing the submission of a response. The Response was filed with the Center on April 7, 2017. The Panel will accept the Response and Supplemental Filing. The Response was apparently served on March 28, 2017 to the Complainant, but inadvertently was not sent to the Center. Accepting the Response will not prejudice the Complainant as the Panel will also accept the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 2017. 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 was founded in 1919 and is one of the world’s largest providers of energy products and services. The Complainant employs more than 50,000 persons worldwide and conducts business operations in approximately 70 countries. The Complainant maintains and operates the website “”. The Complainant’s HALLIBURTON mark (the “Mark”) was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 4, 2002. The Mark is registered in 60 countries worldwide.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 2, 2016. The disputed domain name resolved to a web page on which it is offered for sale. The web page also presents pay-per-click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark. The disputed domain name contains a slight, but intentional variation of the Complainant’s Mark, the addition of an “s” at the end of the Mark, which does not dispel confusing similarity. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark. The Complainant asserts the Respondent has never conducted any bona fide business under the Mark or the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant asserts the Mark was registered and used in bad faith as evidenced by, among other things, the Respondent’s efforts to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 499. B. Respondent
The Respondent disclaims any knowledge of offers to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant that are alleged to have occurred in October and November 2016. The Respondent contends the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name from a “drop catch service” in December 2016 when the prior registration of the disputed domain name expired. The Respondent asserts that the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name for resale because “Halliburton” is a common surname. The Respondent disavows any intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business or trade on the Complainant’s Mark. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed by the mere addition of the letter “s” as a suffix to the Mark, which does not dispel confusing similarity, and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which can generally disregarded for the purposes of evaluating confusing similarity. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Dominadmin / Whois Privacy Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2015-1547 (transferring ). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not conduct a legitimate or bona fide business under the disputed domain name or the Mark. The Complainant has not authorized, permitted, or in any manner licensed the Mark or the disputed domain name to the Respondent. Under the circumstances of this case as discussed further below, the Respondent’s acquisition and offering for sale the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known Mark does not establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Respondent does not possess any rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or disputed domain name. The Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent admits that the disputed domain name was obtained and registered to resell. The Respondent does not disclaim knowledge of the Complainant or the Mark when registering the disputed domain name, but appears to speculate that someone with the surname “Halliburton” might acquire the disputed domain name for presumably legitimate purposes. The Respondent essentially asks this Panel to permit the Respondent to continue to offer the disputed domain name for sale, stating that the $499 price is not a usury price designed to take advantage of anyone, but was suggested by the service through which the disputed domain name is offered for sale. The Panel declines this invitation.
The Respondent has utilized the disputed domain name for commercial purposes. The Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale through a service that also presented links to competitive websites on the web page offering the disputed domain name for sale. The Respondent’s protestation that the Respondent has only earned pennies from these competitive links reveals the Respondent’s goal to reap a commercial return associated with the disputed domain name at the Complainant’s expense.
Accordingly, and for all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: April 25, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy