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 RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ADR PROCEEDING

Chevron Corporation, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, and Chevron Belgium BV v. Kristiina Loodus, AS QLS

Case No. DEUL2020-0005

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Chevron Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, United States, and Chevron Belgium BV, Belgium, represented by Beck Greener, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Kristiina Loodus, AS QLS, Estonia.

2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name <texacobaltic.eu> is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is EURid vzw.

3. Procedural History

The Request to Change the Language of the ADR Proceeding (the “Request”) was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) pursuant to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”), Paragraph A(3)(b), on October 28, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 6, 2020, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant.

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(3), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Request, and the proceedings commenced on November 20, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4), the due date for Response was December 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 9, 2020.

The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 2020, in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4). 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are companies respectively located in the United States and Belgium while the Respondent is located in Estonia. TEXACO is one of the Complainants’ best known brands.

On June 15, 2012, the Respondent entered into a formal agreement with the Complainants’ head distributor for the Baltic region for the sub-distribution in the Baltic states of the Complainants’ TEXACO products. The Complainants’ head distributor for the Baltic region terminated this agreement by a notice of termination on October 19, 2018. Both, the agreement, and the notice of termination as well as further communications sent to the Respondent were written in English.

It results from the Registrar verification that the disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2010, and that the language of the registration agreement is Estonian. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with content in English, Estonian, and Russian language.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(b)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Complainant ascertains that the Respondent has a more than adequate knowledge of the English language. In support of this allegation, the Complainant puts forward the following circumstances to justify its request for a change of language of this ADR Proceeding from Estonian to English:

- the language of the disputed domain name is English, the term “Baltic” being an English word;
- the website at the disputed domain name is in English as well as in Russian and Estonian;
- the language of the agreement of June 15, 2012, by which the Respondent was authorised to distribute the Complainants’ TEXACO branded products was English; and
- the language in which the pre-action legal correspondence between the parties has been conducted, has been English.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(a) of the ADR Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. In the absence of an agreement between the Parties, the Panel may in its sole discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the ADR Proceeding, decide on the written request of a Complainant that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be different than the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name.”

The Panel has not been made aware of any agreement between the parties pertaining to the language of the proceedings. Furthermore, it is undisputed in the case at hand that the language of the registration agreement is Estonian.

In accordance with the general powers attributed to the Panel under Paragraph B(7)(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall ensure on the one hand side that the parties are treated fairly and with equality, and shall ensure, on the other hand, that the ADR Proceeding takes place with due expedition. It is recognized that the ADR Rules are considered a variation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”), under which the panels recognize that under certain circumstances the language of proceedings may be different from the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name. Such circumstances include:

(i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint;

(ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark;

(iii) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint;

(iv) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language; or

(v) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement (e.g., Skyscanner Limited v. Bolognesi Damiano, Aim S.r.l, WIPO Case No. DEUL2020-0001; Sphinx Information Technology Consulting and Software Project GmbH v. Sphinx IT SRL, WIPO Case No. DEUL2018-0001; also see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5).

In the present case, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has more than an adequate knowledge of the English language so that proceeding in English is fair and equal. This conclusion is based on the following facts, which result from the Complainants’ undisputed evidence:

- the language of the disputed domain name is English, the term “Baltic” being an English word relating to the Baltic Sea and the surrounding regions;

- the content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is not only in Estonian language but also in English (and Russian);

- the language of the agreement of June 15, 2012, by which the Respondent was authorised to distribute the Complainants’ TEXACO branded products was English; and

- the language in which the pre-action legal communications sent by the Complainants’ head distributor for the Baltic region to the Respondent has been conducted in English language.

In addition, the Panel notes that requesting a translation of the Complaint will cause undue delay of these proceedings and therefore be inequitable for both parties and contrary to the obligation to proceed with these ADR Proceedings with due expedition.

Therefore, having regard to the above circumstances, the Panel accepts in its sole discretion that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be English and therefore different than the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph A(3)(b)(6) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the language of the ADR proceeding shall be English.

This Panel’s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal.

Tobias Malte Müller
Sole Panelist
Date: January 2, 2021

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/