The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented Withers & Rogers LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Esmaeil Beheshti, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 18, 2021. On January 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 24, 2021, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 17, 2021. On January 28, 2021 and February 4, 2021, the Center received informal communications from the Respondent, however, the Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment on February 18, 2021. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2021. 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 is an energy company based in the United States. It was founded in 1919 and has over 55,000 employees and operates in over 70 countries providing services relating to oil and gas production The Complainant trades under its own name and operates the website “www.halliburton.com” (“Complainant’s Website”). The Complainant is the owner of a numerous trademark registration consisting of the word “halliburton” (the “HALLIBURTON Mark”), including a mark registered in the United States on June 4, 2002 for services in classes 37, 40 and 42 (no. 2575819). The Domain Name The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HALLIBURTON Mark; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and/or is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the HALLIBURTON Mark having registered the HALLIBURTON Mark and related marks in the United States. The Domain Name consists of the HALLIBURTON Mark in its entirety with the addition of country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir”. The Domain Name is hence identical to the Complainant’s HALLIBURTON Mark. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name, nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent does not use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Indeed the Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage at all. The Respondent has registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name, which is identical to the HALLIBURTON Mark, other than for the purpose of confusion with the Complainant’s HALLIBURTON Mark. Given the reputation of the distinctive HALLIBURTON Mark, the Respondent must have been aware of the mark at the time of registration. In such circumstances, the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions however sent an administrative response on January 28, 2021. On February 4, 2021 the Respondent sent an email to the Center, the relevant portion being: “The domain is inactive and I have not abused it. I want to name my son halliburton.” The Respondent has provided no evidence to support the above claims. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the HALLIBURTON Mark, having registrations for the HALLIBURTON Mark as a trademark in the United States. The Domain Name consists of the HALLIBURTON Mark, with the addition of the ccTLD “.ir”. Discounting the ccTLD the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s HALLIBURTON Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you 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 (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 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.” (Policy, paragraph 4(c)). The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the HALLIBURTON Mark or a mark similar to the HALLIBURTON Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. Noting that the Respondent’s claim that he wished to name his son “halliburton” is both implausible and entirely unsupported by any evidence, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial use. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond substantively to the Complaint and thus has failed to provide any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registrations to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) the 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 the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the HALLIBURTON Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The HALLIBURTON Mark is a coined, unique word with no descriptive meaning that had been in use for over 45 years at the date of registration. There is no obvious reason, nor has the Respondent offered a plausible and supported explanation, for the Respondent to acquire a domain name identical to the HALLIBURTON Mark unless there was an intention to create a likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant and the HALLIBURTON Mark. An Internet user viewing the Domain Name may be confused into thinking that the Domain Name refers to a website in some way connected to the Complainant. The registration of the Domain Name in awareness of the HALLIBURTON Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts under these circumstances to registration in bad faith. The Panel is prepared to infer, based on the conduct of the Respondent, including the passive holding of the Domain Name and the failure by the Respondent to provide a supported and substantive explanation of its conduct in acquiring a domain name that is identical to the HALLIBURTON Mark, that the Domain Name is most likely being held with the purpose of taking advantage of the HALLIBURTON Mark. As such, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith. The Panel, while noting that the Policy only requires that a complainant show that a respondent registered or subsequently used the domain name at issue in bad faith, finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: March 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy