The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Polsinelli PC, U.S.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 1245952419, Canada / tlahdenranta, U.S. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed Domain Name. On June 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 12, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 15, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 June 18, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for filing a Response was July 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the Respondent’s default on July 10, 2020. The Center appointed Marylee Jenkins as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 2020. 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 Based on the review of the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel determines that the Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the word mark HALLIBURTON (“Complainant’s Mark”) in multiple jurisdictions including, relevant to this proceeding, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,575,819 (filed on March 13, 2001; registered on June 4, 2002) in international classes 37, 40, and 42; and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,575,840 (filed on March 23, 2001; registered on June 4, 2002) in international classes 1, 6, 7, 9, and 16. The Complainant also owns the domain name The disputed Domain Name The Complainant states that it is a U.S. energy company providing its products and services to clients for more than a century. The Complainant states that it has operations in approximately 80 countries and provides multiple products and services to the oil and gas industry. The Complainant further maintains an Internet presence through its primary website at the domain name The Complainant alleges that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark as it transposes the letter “L” and the letter “I” in the Complainant’s Mark, which it alleges is evidence of typosquatting. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s Mark by registering the disputed Domain Name that incorporates the Complainant’s Mark in its entirety except for the changing of one letter. This has enabled the Respondent to use the disputed Domain Name to perpetrate a phishing attack by using an email address with the disputed Domain Name in it and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees to fraudulently ask a Halliburton client to change the bank account through which it pays for services. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. Additionally, the Complainant notes that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register the disputed Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s Mark. Rather, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has neither business relations with nor knowledge of the Respondent and that it has been unable to locate the identity of the Respondent through its research efforts. The Complainant further alleges that at the time of the registration of the disputed Domain Name, the Respondent should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s Mark and that the registration of the disputed Domain Name containing a well-known trademark constitutes bad faith per se. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which supports an inference of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s Mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has used the disputed Domain Name in bad faith when it made a phishing attack by using an email address with the disputed Domain Name in it to ask a Halliburton client to change the bank account through which it pays for services. Based on the above, the Complainant alleges that it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s Mark and that the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the domain name holder is to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (complainant) asserts to an ICANN-approved dispute resolution service provider that: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as the Panel considers appropriate. Nevertheless, the Panel may rule in the Complainant’s favor only after the Complainant has proven that the above elements are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to establish that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that it is the owner of and has rights in and to the Complainant’s Mark. A review of the second-level domain of the disputed Domain Name shows that the domain comprises the Complainant’s Mark HALLIBURTON in its entirety, except for reversing of the letter "L" and the letter “I”, which results in a misspelling of the Complainant’s Mark. A review of the Complainant’s trademark registrations for the word mark HALLIBURTON in multiple classes and jurisdictions shows that such registrations well pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name. The misspelling of the Complainant’s Mark in the disputed Domain Name does not differentiate it from the Complainant’s Mark. Rather such misspelling, along with the evidence of the Complainant’s many trademark registrations and its own web site at the domain name Based on this uncontested evidence, the Panel concludes that this disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark, in which the Complainant has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence that the Complainant has at any time ever licensed, sponsored, endorsed, or authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant’s Mark in any manner. In addition, no evidence has been presented that before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent had been using or was making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed Domain Name in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods or services or that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed Domain Name, as an individual, business, or otherwise. Rather the uncontested evidence clearly shows that the Complainant has well-established rights in the Complainant’s Mark in multiple jurisdictions that substantially pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent used the disputed Domain Name via email to impersonate an employee and fraudulently ask a Halliburton client to change its bank account for payment of services. The Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this disputed Domain Name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based upon the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the disputed Domain Name. This finding is supported by the uncontested evidence showing that the registration of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent in no way pre-dates the Complainant’s substantially earlier registration dates for the Complainant’s Mark. In addition, the Complainant has more than sufficiently shown that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of making phishing attacks on the Complainant’s clients using the disputed Domain Name fraudulently in an email address while impersonating one of the Complainant’s employees. As the uncontested evidence also shows, the Respondent was not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent clearly had knowledge of the Complainant, the Complainant’s Mark, and the Complainant’s website based on the Respondent’s misspelling of the Complainant’s Mark in the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s current non-use of this disputed Domain Name and its failure to provide accurate contact information in the domain name registration also support a finding of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of this disputed Domain Name. Considering the above evidence and findings, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 Marylee Jenkins
Sole Panelist
Date: September 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy