DECISION

Willbros USA, Inc. v. R Smith

Claim Number:  FA0312000218916

PARTIES

Complainant is Willbros USA, Inc., Houston, TX (“Complainant”) represented by Mark Tidwell, of Jackson Walker LLP, 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2100, San Antonio, TX 78205.  Respondent is R Smith, 1 Oluwole Dr., Lagos LA 000, Nigeria (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wilbrosoilcox.com>, registered with Address Creation.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 11, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 15, 2003.

On December 22, 2003, Address Creation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wilbrosoilcox.com> is registered with Address Creation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Address Creation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Address Creation 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 December 22, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 12, 2004 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@wilbrosoilcox.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.

On January 15, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

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 Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <wilbrosoilcox.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WILLBROS mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wilbrosoilcox.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <wilbrosoilcox.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant holds a pending trademark application for its WILLBROS mark, filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 24, 2003 (Ser. No. 78/332,519).  Complainant has used its WILLBROS mark since 1915 for goods and services relating primarily to engineering and construction services for oil and gas production and pipeline systems.  Complainant allegedly has over 400 clients in 55 different countries, including Nigeria.  In fact, Complainant has provided services in Nigeria under its WILLBROS mark since 1962.  Accordingly, Complainant’s WILLBROS mark enjoys favorable public acceptance and recognition, and is a valuable asset to Complainant.

Complainant also owns and operates a website located at <willbros.com>. 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 9, 2003.  Respondent uses the domain name to offer services in the oil and gas industry. 

DISCUSSION

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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has common law rights in the WILLBROS mark through continuous use in commerce since 1915 and has advanced sufficient evidence to support the finding of secondary meaning associated with the mark.  Complainant also has a pending trademark application for its WILLBROS mark.  See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2003) (holding that Complainant established rights in the descriptive RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the mark); see also SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist. Rights in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications).

The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s WILLBROS mark nearly in its entirety, but merely omits an “L” from the mark.  See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks).

In addition, Respondent has added the word “oil” to the name, which describes Complainant’s services and the industry that Complainant operates in.  

Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see also PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (“Respondent does not by adding the common descriptive or generic terms ‘corp’, ‘corporation’ and ‘2000’ following ‘PGE’, create new or different marks in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor does it alter the underlying PG&E mark held by Complainant”); see also Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Sounds Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (“likelihood of confusion is further increased by the fact that the Respondent and [Complainant] operate within the same industry”).

In light of the foregoing, the addition of the word “cox” fails to distinguish the name and nature of the disputed domain name from Complainant’s respected mark.  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term).

Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is established.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  Therefore, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond).

Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because it is intentionally diverting potential customers of Complainant to its own website that offers competing oil-related services.  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding that Respondent, as a competitor of Complainant, had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized Complainant’s mark for its competing website); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods).

Additionally, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is established.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The notoriety of Complainant’s mark is sufficient to infer that Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s rights in the mark, especially because it was involved in the same industry.  Therefore, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between Complainant’s mark and the content advertised on Respondent’s website was obvious, Respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”).

Furthermore, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent uses the name in competition with Complainant’s services, evidencing a strong likelihood that the name is being used to attract Internet users from Complainant’s competing business.  See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).

Additionally, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent likely attracted Internet users to its website in the hopes of stealing Complainant’s customers by causing confusion with Complainant’s mark.  See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same services as Complainant via his website); see also Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent initially used the domain name at issue to resolve to a website offering similar services as Complainant and were offered to the same market).

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is established. 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wilbrosoilcox.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  January 29, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/11.html