Complainant is Equinor ASA, Norway, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Name Redacted, United States of America1 .
The disputed domain name is <equinnor.com> which is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from those in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 30, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 3, 2020.2
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 24, 2020. On August 13, 2020, a third party contacted the Center alleging that it is not aware of the disputed domain name and it is not the owner of the disputed domain name. No Response was received by the Center. Accordingly, on August 26, 2020, the Center notified the parties it would proceed to the panel appointment.
The Center appointed Gerardo Saavedra as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2020. This Panel finds that it was properly constituted. This 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.
Complainant, formerly named Statoil ASA, is a Norwegian corporation engaged in developing oil, gas, wind, and solar energy.
Complainant has rights, among others, over the EQUINOR mark for which it holds registration No. 298813 with the Norwegian Industrial Property Office, registered on June 12, 2018, in classes 4, 40, and 42; International registration No. 1444675, registered on July 4, 2018, in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 42; and registration No. 017900772 with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, registered on January 18, 2019, in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 42.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2020. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to a website showing, among others, “equinnor.com”, “This domain was recently registered at Namecheap”, “Related Links”, followed by apparent links to other websites.
Complainant’s assertions may be summarized as follows.
Complainant is an international energy company with operations in more than 30 countries. It was founded as the Norwegian state oil company (Statoil) in 1972, and changed its name to Equinor in 2018. The name change was announced in March 2018 and the news were shared and commented worldwide on different media platforms. In parallel to the official name change an adequate IP portfolio has been created, and mark applications for EQUINOR have been filed worldwide. Further, Complainant is the owner of more than 100 domain name registrations throughout the world containing the EQUINOR mark distributed among generic Top-Level Domains and country-code Top-Level Domains.
The disputed domain name is visually, phonetically and conceptually confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark EQUINOR and to its company name. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the mark EQUINOR with only one letter being misspelled (double “n” instead of a single one). The disputed domain name is therefore a common, obvious, and intentional misspelling of Complainant’s mark.
Due to the famous status of Complainant’s EQUINOR mark, such misspelling will invariably result in an association of the disputed domain name with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name is likely to attract Internet users seeking to access Complainant’s website at “www.equinor.com”, who misspell or err in typing the domain address they seek, or they may believe that an email sent from the disputed domain name is indeed from Complainant.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name based on Complainant’s prior use of its EQUINOR mark and company name. Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the EQUINOR mark in connection with a website or for any other purpose. Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any mark rights in that name or mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. The disputed domain name redirects to a parked page with pay-per-click links.
Respondent has intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is apparent from the composition of the disputed domain name that Respondent chose to register a name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark that Respondent was fully aware of the fact that it incorporated a well recognized and distinctive mark in which Respondent had no prior rights. Respondent could not have chosen or subsequently used the word “equinnor” in the disputed domain name for any reasons other than to take unfair advantage of the reputation of Complainant’s famous mark.
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark indicates a deliberate attempt to capture Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is in some way associated with, authorized by or connected to Complainant. Considering the brand awareness of the mark EQUINOR worldwide, an Internet user would most probably assume a connection with Complainant and its business when seeking information on a website with the disputed domain name or receiving an email from it. Since the MX-records are set up for the disputed domain name there is a high risk that fraudulent emails are being sent from it. The aim of phishing emails is to illegally obtain sensitive information or payment by using the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s mark and company name.
The use of a privacy or proxy service which is known to block or intentionally delay disclosure of the identity of the actual registrant is often considered as an indication of bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
The lack of response from Respondent does not automatically result in a favorable decision for Complainant.3 The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the EQUINOR mark.
Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (i.e. “.com”) after a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. Taking into account the aforesaid, it is clear that the disputed domain name almost identically reproduces the EQUINOR mark, as noted in the Complaint. This Panel considers that such mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the additional “n” letter in the term “equinnor” in the disputed domain name does not avoid its confusing similarity with said mark (see sections 1.7 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
Thus, this Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has alleged and Respondent has failed to deny that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that it has no relationship with Respondent, that Respondent is not authorized to use the EQUINOR mark, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that the disputed domain name will invariably result in its association with Complainant and its EQUINOR mark, and that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. The evidence in the file shows that the website linked to the disputed domain name shows apparent links to other websites. In any event, it seems to this Panel that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
This Panel considers that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Intocast AG v. Lee Daeyoon, WIPO Case No. D2000-1467, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In the file there is no evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or of any other circumstances giving rise to a possible right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by Respondent.
Based on the aforesaid, this Panel concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, which Respondent chose not to rebut.
Taking into consideration Complainant’s international presence and media coverage, and that the registration and use of its EQUINOR mark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name, this Panel is of the view that Respondent should have been aware of the existence of Complainant and its EQUINOR mark at the time it obtained the registration of the disputed domain name.
The use of a domain name for a parking website with links that may generate PPC revenue is not, per se, evidence of bad faith. However, in the case at hand, Respondent’s bad faith may be deduced from the following facts: (i) the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s name and EQUINOR mark coupled with just a minor typographical error variation, practice commonly known as “typosquatting” and which has been deemed as a strong indicative of bad faith under a number of UDRP cases;4 (ii) Complainant is a well-established company; (iii) Respondent is using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name (albeit with such minor letter variation) without Complainant’s authorization; (iv) the lack of any basis in the file to conceive a legitimate use of the disputed domain name by Respondent;5 (v) Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide its name and contact details; (vi) Respondent’s use of a name and street address that, based on the evidence in the file, seems to indicate that Respondent misappropriated the identity of a third party; and (vii) Respondent’s failure to appear at this proceeding.
In sum, the overall evidence indicates that Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was deliberate for its substantial similarity with, and with the likely intention to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of, Complainant’s name and EQUINOR mark, which denotes bad faith.5
In light of the above, this Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, this Panel orders that the disputed domain name <equinnor.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Date: September 18, 2020
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST‑12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
2 The original Complaint was filed against “WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc.”, which appeared as registrant in the corresponding WhoIs report. The amended Complaint was filed against Respondent, as per the information disclosed by the Registrar.
3 See Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0465: “the panel finds that as a result of the default, Respondent has failed to rebut any of the factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by Complainant. The panel does not, however, draw any inferences from the default other than those that have been established or can fairly be inferred from the facts presented by Complainant and that, as a result of the default, have not been rebutted by any contrary assertions or evidence.” See also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.
4 See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman, WIPO Case No. D2006-0517: “the practice of typosquatting, in and of itself, constitutes bad faith registration”. See also Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568: “Typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in bad faith”.
5 See Ferrari S.p.A. v. Ms. Lee Joohee (or Joo-Hee), WIPO Case No. D2003-0882: “Respondent has provided no evidence or suggestion of a possible legitimate use of the Domain Name. Thus, in the words of Telstra, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate”.
6 See Jafra Cosmetics, S.A. de C.V. and Jafra Cosmetics International, S.A. de C.V. v. ActiveVector, WIPO Case No. D2005-0250: “due to the intrinsically distinctive character of Complainants’ trademarks, it is inconceivable that the contested domain name would have been registered and used if it were not for exploiting the fame and goodwill of Complainants’ marks by diverting Internet traffic intended for Complainant”.