The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Polsinelli PC, United States.
The Respondent is Najranps Project Sales, Singapore.
The disputed domain name <haliiburton.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2019. On December 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2019, the Registrar 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 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 December 5, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2019.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 2019. 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.
The Complainant, founded in 1919, is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. It has more than 60,000 employees, operates in approximately 80 countries, and had annual revenues of USD 23.9 billion in 2018. It is the proprietor of the trademark HALLIBURTON, registered in 60 countries, including in the United States under Reg. No. 2575819 and registered on June 4, 2002.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 4, 2019.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark as it has changed only one letter in the Complainant’s trademark, namely the letter “l” into the letter “i”. This is a clear example of typosquatting because switching a single letter does not dispel the similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. It rather demonstrates that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant’s trademark
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is clear that the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name in order to exploit the Complainant’s interest and goodwill in the HALLIBURTON trademark. The Respondent is not making any legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name and never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been licensed to register or use the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been used for a fraudulent email address providing false bank account information to attempt to induce a customer of the Complainant to transfer funds to the account. The Respondent attempted to defraud the Complainant’s customer on or around February 18, 2019, by using an email address “[…]@haliiburton.com” to impersonate an employee of the Complainant. The Respondent intercepted an email from an employee of the Complainant to its customer discussing payment for purchased products. The Respondent then replied to the customer providing false bank account information in the form of an invoice.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark only by one letter, i.e. the letter “l” in the Complainant’s trademark has been replaced with the letter “i” in the disputed domain name.
See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is merely an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and as such this is a clear case of typosquatting.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and 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 registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] 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 or competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 Respondent has submitted that the disputed domain name has been used for fraudulent purposes, namely, to attempt to obtain a payment from the Complainant’s customer to the Respondent and by intercepting email correspondence between the Complainant and its customer.
It is clear from the scheme that the Respondent has had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name and then has used it to perpetrate a fraud on the Complainant’s customer, and the Complainant.
Using a domain name, similar to another’s trademark, for fraudulent purposes concerning the trademark owner’s business clearly means that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.
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 <haliiburton.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 13, 2020