ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. “Valero Energy”, Valero-Jobs Case No. D2025-1900 1. The Parties The Complainants are Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fasthoff Law Firm PLLC, United States . The Respondent is “Valero Energy”, valero-jobs, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 13, 2025, 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 (Contact Privacy, Inc. Customer) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 14, 2025, 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 May 14, 2025. 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 May 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 6, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Gary Saposnik as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 2025. 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, Valero Energy Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, United States. The Complainant, Valero Marketing and Supply Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Valero Energy Corporation. The second Complainant is, in turn, the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark “VALERO” (both combined as “Complainant” hereafter). The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the mark VALERO, including the following: - VALERO, United States Reg. No. 4216650, registered October 2, 2012, in class 36, for credit card services; - VALERO, United States Reg. No. 1314004, registered January 8, 1985, in class 42, for oil and gas exploration, production, processing and distribution services; - V VALERO, United States Reg. No. 2927757, registered February 22, 2005, in class 4, for gasoline and diesel fuel; lubricant base oil. The VALERO mark has been used and promoted for at least 41 years, throughout the world, in a wide variety of media formats, including print, television, radio, Internet, billboards, and signage, among others. The Complainant was ranked at number 30 in the Fortune 500 corporate rankings for 2024. The Complainant has owned and operated an Internet website under the domain name for many years, and utilized that domain name for company addresses through which it communicates internally, with customers, vendors, and the public in general. The Respondent is listed as “Valero Energy”, located in Texas. The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2025, and resolves to a dead Landing Page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALERO marks. The disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant’s VALERO mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic term “jobs”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name; has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain; and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name with intent for commercial gain. The Complainant has not licensed to the Respondent the right to use VALERO mark, and the Respondent is not otherwise authorized to act on the Complainant’s behalf. To the contrary, the Respondent is engaged in an advanced fee scam, attempting to collect personal identifying information, and to defraud victims with a job offer scam. The disputed domain name is being used in an email exchange that includes an offer letter and letter of agreement from the Respondent posing as a Complainant’s employee in an attempt to defraud the intended victim. In addition, the disputed domain
page 3 name resolves to a dead page Landing Page, with nothing on the record showing the Respondent’s preparation to use the corresponding disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose. The Respondent’s conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Lastly, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has owned and continuously used the VALERO mark in commerce for more than 41 years at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s prominence in the business world when it registered the dispute domain name. Notwithstanding the Respondent’s knowledge of the fame associated with the VALERO mark, the Respondent intentionally registered, for commercial gain, a domain name that is comprised of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant further alleges that in addition to the criminal conduct and non-use of the disputed domain name for a website, in certain circumstances, it is possible for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallow, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Complainant avers that the Respondent has also provided false contact information to the Registrar in an attempt to conceal his or her true identity, both of which constitute bad faith under the UDRP. See Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDIrector, WIPO Case No. D2000-0111. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the 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 the 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. The 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “-jobs”, 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 finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the 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
page 4 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the 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. The Complainant has submitted unrebutted evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a scheme to impersonate the Complainant and its employees, in attempting to collect personal identifying information, and to defraud victims with a job offer scam. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant acquired trademark rights in its VALERO marks. The disputed domain name resolves to a dead Landing Page. However, as previously noted, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in an email scheme to solicit personal information from unsuspecting victims with a job offer scam. The Respondent posed as a Complainant’s employee in an email exchange with an offer letter and letter of agreement in an attempt to defraud the intended victim. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances, including providing false contact details, may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing, impersonating/passing, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The Complainant has provided unrebutted evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a scheme to impersonate the Complainant and its employees, in attempting to collect personal identifying information, and to defraud victims with a job offer scam. Furthermore, the Respondent provided false contact information, posing as the Complainant in its contact information to the Registrar in an attempt to conceal their true identity. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not rebutted the Complainant’s evidence, and the Respondent has a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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. /Gary Saposnik/ Gary Saposnik Sole Panelist Date: June 27, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy