About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CITGO Petroleum Corporation v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Yuriy Lyashevych

Case No. D2020-1609

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CITGO Petroleum Corporation, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by McAfee & Taft, A Professional Corporation, United States.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Yuriy Lyashevych, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <ciitgo.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2020. On June 19, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 19, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 24, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 29, 2020.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 21, 2020.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 2020. 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 invitation to the Complainant to file an amended Complaint stemmed from the fact that the Domain Name was registered in the name of a privacy service. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar disclosed the name and address of the entity in whose name the Domain Name had been registered. The amended Complaint names both the privacy service and the underlying registrant as Respondents. For the purposes of this decision the Panel treats the underlying registrant, Yuriy Lyashevych, as the Respondent.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a United States based petroleum company, which first used its CITGO trade mark in 1965. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous United States trade mark registrations of marks covering the name “Citgo”. For present purposes it is sufficient to mention just one, namely:

United States Registration No.798,036 CITGO (typed drawing) registered on October 26, 1965 (application filed on February 23, 1965) in class 15 for gasoline.

The Complainant operates a website connected to its domain name, <citgo.com>. It uses that domain name for the email addresses of its staff.

The Domain Name was registered on May 19, 2020. As at June 16, 2020 the Domain Name was connected to a parking page featuring sponsored links, none of which appeared to have any association with the Complainant. Currently, the Domain Name is not connected to an active website of any kind.

On May 19, 2020 the Complainant supplied an invoice to one of its gasoline customers for a sum in excess of USD 900,000. That same day the Complainant’s customer emailed back saying that it would be making payment on May 20, 2020. On May 20, 2020 the Complainant’s customer received an email purporting to come from a staff member of the Complainant with the email address [name redacted]@citgo.com, but in fact sent from a very different source and configured so that responses would direct to an individual of the same name as but with an email address using the Domain Name (i.e. [name redacted]@ciitgo.com instead of [name redacted]@citgo.com). The email invited the Complainant’s customer to respond to the sender with details of the wire process relating to the transaction.

On May 20, 2020 through bank processing errors the Complainant’s customer was alerted to the fact that the Domain Name was being used to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt to deceive the Complainant’s customer into paying the USD 900,000 to the Respondent instead of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITGO trade mark and that it was registered for the purpose for which it was used namely for a phishing expedition designed to defraud the Complainant and/or its customer for a sum in excess of USD 900,000. The Complainant contends that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s CITGO trade mark in its entirety albeit with an additional “i” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain identifier. The use to which the Domain Name was put immediately following its registration (see Section 4 above) demonstrates that the Domain Name was intended to confuse.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Using a domain name for the purpose for which the Domain Name has been used, namely impersonation of the Complainant for the purposes of fraud, cannot on any basis be said to give rise to any relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

On the evidence before it, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered for phishing, was used for phishing and has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) 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, <ciitgo.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/