The Complainant is Bechtel Group, Inc. of Reston, Virginia, United States of America (“USA”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is denis kelvin of Sangvi, Pune, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2018, naming the Respondent as “N/A”. The Center sent its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on December 21, 2018, confirming that the Domain Name is registered with it, identifying the registrant as denis kelvin and providing the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies, that the Domain Name has been locked, that the Domain Name was registered on October 4, 2018, and will expire on October 4, 2019, and that the registrant was informed of the registration agreement in English.
The Center invited the Complainant on December 24, 2018 to amend the Complaint to reflect the registrant information provided by the Registrar. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 26, 2018.
The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 28, 2018. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was January 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 21, 2019.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2019. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the amended Complaint complies with applicable formal requirement, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the parent company of a large group of construction, procurement and engineering companies operating under the mark BECHTEL. The business was founded in 1898 and has completed more than 25,000 projects in 160 countries on all seven continents of the world. These have included major projects in India. The group employed about 55,000 people in 2015. The Complainant operates its primary website, promoting the services of its subsidiaries, at “”.
The Complainant has registered BECHTEL as its mark in the USA, European Union (“EU”) and India. In the USA the mark is registered as a typed drawing on applications with filing dates that go back to December 23, 1974. In the EU it is registered as a word mark with filing date October 31, 2003, and claiming seniority from national registrations with filing dates that go back to April 2, 1979. In India it is registered as a word mark with filing dates that go back to December 24, 1996.
Emails have been sent with the return address career@, purportedly from the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Complainant, to individuals offering them employment by the Complainant. However, these emails were not sent by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has registered rights in the mark BECHTEL and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to it, differing from it only in the addition of generic elements, which also comprise the Complainant’s full corporate name together with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, “.org”.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant confirms that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with it and that it has not authorized the Respondent to use or register the Domain Name. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to “phish” for personal information for fraudulent use from recipients of bogus emails as described above, and submits that this is not an activity which can give rise to rights or legitimate interests, and is evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark BECHTEL.
The Panel also considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the generic elements “group”, “inc”, and “.org”. Furthermore, except for the gTLD suffix, the Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s full corporate name, which would affirm the likelihood of confusion.
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s statement that it has no links to the Respondent and has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the Domain Name or any other name containing its BECHTEL mark.
It is also evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any corresponding name.
The Panel further accepts the Complainant’s undisputed evidence that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name has been for the purpose of “phishing” personal information for improper use; it follows that the Respondent has not used or made preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for the purpose of “phishing” personal information for improper use by exploiting the confusing similarity of the Domain Name to the Complainant’s mark BECHTEL and the likelihood that individuals will assume that an email address at this Domain Name is an address of the Complainant.
This use of the Domain Name is clearly in bad faith and it is reasonable to infer that the Domain Name was registered for this purpose. The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
All three requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 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 Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: February 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy