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

Statoil ASA v. Geosum

Case No. D2015-1541

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Statoil ASA of Stavanger, Norway, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Geosum of Madrid, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <statoil.website> (the "Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 28, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 29, 2015, 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 September 8, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 29, 2015.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2015. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international energy company which has been in business for over 40 years. STATOIL is a widely known trade mark and is registered worldwide, for the first time in Norway in 1974.

The Domain Name, registered on June 25, 2015, is inactive.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is an international energy company which has been in business for over 40 years. STATOIL is a widely known trade mark and is registered worldwide, for the first time in Norway in 1974.

The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's STATOIL widely known trade mark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. It is not authorised to use the STATOIL mark. It is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. It is not generally known by the Domain Name and has not acquired any trade mark rights in STATOIL.

The Domain Name is inactive. STATOIL has no meaning except for the Complainant's trade mark and may be used for deception. Passive holding of a Domain Name which cannot be used legitimately by anyone other than the trade mark holder is registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's widely known mark STATOIL and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"). ".website". ".website" is a new gTLD of general application and has no particular distinctive meaning of its own. Further, generic meaning gTLDs are usually not taken into account for the purposes of determining confusing similarity under the Policy. As such the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's STATOIL registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy with respect to the Domain Name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not appear to have any trade marks associated with the name "Statoil". There is no evidence that it is commonly known by this name and it does not have any consent from the Complainant to use this name. It does not appear to have used the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of services of its own. The Domain Name is inactive. Further, the Respondent did not respond to this Complaint and does not explain why it has registered the Domain Name. Given the famous nature of the Complainant's mark it would indicate to most Internet users and members of the public an association with the Complainant. The Respondent does not deny any knowledge of the Complainant and its rights or provide any evidence of intended legitimate use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out various criteria which are evidence of registration and use in bad faith which are non exclusive. However, UDRP panels have historically found that there can be a finding of registration and use in bad faith where there is passive use of a widely known trade mark in a domain name where there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be good faith. See the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not explained why it would be entitled to register a domain name consisting of the Complainant's widely known trade mark and a gTLD of generic application. As such the Panel finds on the balance of probability that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.

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 <statoil.website> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2015

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/