ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bechtel Global Corporation v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC Case No. D2024-1903 1. The Parties Complainant is Bechtel Global Corporation, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by ZeroFox, U.S. Respondent is Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 13, 2024 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 22, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 13, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 14, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2024. 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, together with its corporate affiliates, is a multinational company based in the U.S. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant’s group companies have offered construction and related services under the mark BECHTEL. In this regard, Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel Group, Inc. who is the owner of several registrations for the BECHTEL mark. These include, among others, U.S. Registration Nos. 1,047,369 (registered August 31, 1976) and 1,196,429 (registered May 25, 1982). Complainant promotes its services through the website at “www.bechtel.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on January 12, 2024. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s official website. Complainant’s evidence shows that Respondent has further used it to set up an email address to impersonate Complainant and send fraudulent email communications. The record shows that Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the BECHTEL mark as “one of the most respected, global engineering, construction, and project management companies in the world,” having constructed such globally known projects as the Hoover Dam and the Chunnel. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full Complainant’s BECHTEL mark into the disputed domain name, with only the addition of the dictionary term “worldwide.” Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain. In particular, Complainant asserts that Respondent has set up an email address associated with the disputed domain name, which Respondent has used in an attempt to impersonate Complainant, sending phishing emails to suppliers and business partners of Complainant, seeking to purchase a large number of laptops. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
page 3 Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms (here, “worldwide”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing activity as here, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the disputed domain name is being used to redirect to Complainant’s own website. Respondent has meanwhile set up an email address associated with the disputed domain name, which Respondent has used in a phishing attempt to impersonate Complainant, posing as an actual employee of Complainant and seeking to purchase a large number of laptops from Complainant’s vendor. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Therefore, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy.
page 4 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 Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: July 3, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy