The Complainant is Bechtel Group, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America ("United States"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Up!, Paul Hallelujah of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 19, 2017. On July 19, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 19, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the 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 July 31, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 20, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 21, 2017.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on September 6, 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 is the holding company for a large, international group of construction, procurement and engineering companies based in the United States. The Complainant has registered the trademark BECHTEL, among others incorporating its name, in many countries in the world, in Canada dating back to a filing in 1977 (Canada Trademark Registration No. TMA233018, registered on May 11, 1979).
The Complainant promotes its subsidiaries services through its primary website at "".
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 7, 2017. The Respondent has never used the disputed domain name other than for a parking page with links to various, unrelated websites. That page displays the message "BUY THIS DOMAIN The owner of is offering it for sale for an asking price of 649 USD!"
In response to a letter from representatives of the Complainant to the Respondent, he replied "Offers may be made via Sedo." 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends:
- that its name and trademark BECHTEL are well-known throughout the world;
- that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark in that the only addition to it is the Top-Level Domain suffix ".ltd" which cannot and does not distinguish the disputed domain name from its trademark;
- that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way and the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use Complainant's trademark in any manner, including in domain names;
- that the Respondent has not taken the opportunity afforded to him to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name and his existing use of it does not demonstrate any connection at all or other rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name;
- that the Respondent has a proven history of registering numerous domain names incorporating well−known trademarks of a range of unrelated entities to which he equally obviously has no connection; including , , , , and , all registered on or around the same day as the disputed domain name and all offered for sale;
- that, in these circumstances, the disputed domain name has obviously been registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the fame of the Complainant's trademark and the Respondent has clearly acquired the disputed domain name for sale, such conduct being archetypically registration and use in bad faith as prescribed by the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i). B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To have the disputed domain name transferred to it, the Complainant must prove each of the following.(Policy, paragraph 4(a)):
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it owns numerous trademark registrations of the mark BECHTEL in Canada and other countries.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's BECHTEL trademark.
The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BECHTEL. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Further to the unrebutted prima facie case made out by the Complainant, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain name, any more than he had in the other domain names registered by the Respondent comprising the marks of third parties. There are no circumstances here that would appear to give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The well-known trademark BECHTEL is so obviously connected with the Complainant that by definition the registration of the disputed domain name was made in opportunistic bad faith, and subsequent use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent to sell the disputed domain name, coupled with the Respondent's pattern of conduct of registering several domain names incorporating the trademarks of others, is clearly use in bad faith in the sense of the example given by the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i).
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy