Complainant is Maersk Drilling A/S, Denmark, represented internally.
Respondent is James Pata, Ghana. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2020. On August 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 17, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 21, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 24, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020, the Center received an email communication from Respondent, in response to which the Center asked the Parties if they wished to explore settlement negotiations. The Center received a second email communication from Respondent on October 3, 2020. On October 29, 2020, Complainant confirmed it did not wish to pursue settlement discussions. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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 Complainant describes itself as “a global leader in harsh environment and deepwater drilling, with one of the youngest and most advanced fleets in the industry”. Complainant asserts that it provides its energy-related services under the trademark MAERSK DRILLING. Complainant operates a website at “www.maerskdrilling.com”. Although the record provided by Complainant is very sparse, and makes no specific reference to an actual registered trademark, Complainant did provide excerpts of its 2019 annual report, and the Panel itself recognizes MAERSK as a fairly well-established mark in the energy sector. The Domain Name was registered on May 29, 2020. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. There does not appear to be any relationship between the Parties. On September 25, 2020, in response to the Center’s notification of Respondent default, Respondent sent the Center an email (evidently believing the Center was somehow acting on behalf of Complainant), and stating “if u are interested in the domain let’s come to an agreement and get the domain transferred to your company”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for the remedy it seeks, viz., cancellation of the Domain Name registration. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark MAERSK DRILLING through use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is identical to that mark, as the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is generally not regarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate or prove his bona fides vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Given Respondent’s failure to explain his motives, and given the lack of evidence of any relationship between the Parties, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate reason why Respondent would have registered this Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. On the undisputed record before the Panel, it is rather clear that Respondent had Complainant’s MAERSK DRILLING trademark in mind when he registered the Domain Name. The TLD for the Domain Name – energy – is the field of activity in which Complainant operates. As such, it is evident that Respondent was targeting Complainant here. As respects bad faith use, the Panel cannot fathom any legitimate purpose for Respondent registering this Domain Name. Under certain circumstances, passive holding of a domain name which clearly targeted an established trademark may constitute bad faith use under the UDRP. The seminal case in this regard is Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Telstra case provided a firmer basis for the application of this principle than does the present case (again, Complainant here did not provide any evidence of the renown of its trademark), but the Telstra principle of “passive holding” may reasonably be applied here. In the alternative, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s September 25, 2020 email (quoted above) is evidence of his intent to sell the Domain Name to Complainant. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). It bears noting that Complainant did not request a transfer of the Domain Name; Complainant unambiguously requested as a remedy that the Domain Name registration be canceled. 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 Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: November 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy