Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Chevron Corporation, San Ramon, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Cydney A. Tune, of Pillsbury Winthrop LLP. The Respondent is Drew Fenton, Sugar Land, TX, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "chevronenergy.com" registered with Register.com.

On February 26, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 19, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 22, 2001.

On January 19, 2001, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "chevronenergy.com" is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 30, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 19, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chevronenergy.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Chevron Corporation, has common law and federal trademark rights in a number of CHEVRON marks, which have been used for nearly seventy years in connection with energy-related goods and services. Currently, Complainant is one of the world’s leading energy companies and is active in more than one hundred countries. Complainant employs approximately 31,000 people worldwide. Over the years, Complainant has invested substantial amount of resources developing and promoting its famous marks. Due to Complainant’s extensive use of its marks consumers have come to associate Complainant’s marks with energy-related goods and services.

Respondent, Drew Fenton, is an individual who is not associated with the Complainant or any other energy-related company or corporation. Respondent registered the disputed domain name several decades after the Complainant’s marks became famous. Complainant, on several occasions, contacted Respondent and offered to pay its registration costs in exchange for transfer of the disputed domain name, to which Respondent counter-offered, demanding a "reasonable profit" in the amount of $50,000. To date, Respondent has made no use of the domain name at issue.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

According to the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in the mark, and the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Here, Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, CHEVRON. Respondent’s domain name, chevronenergy.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it is comprised of Complainant’s mark as well as a generic term that directly relates to Complainant’s business. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF 0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s business); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that "[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY" and thus Policy 4(a)(i) is satisfied).

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark.

Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

Furthermore, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Thus, the Panel is entitled to find that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names"); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Complainant has shown Respondent offered to sell the domain name at issue for $50,000, which far exceeds out-of-pocket costs directly associated with the domain name registration. See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name, chevronenergy.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.