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

Saudi Arabian Oil Co. v. Yordanys Hector

Case No. D2018-0908

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Saudi Arabian Oil Co. of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States of America ("United States").

The Respondent is Yordanys Hector of Orlando, Florida, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <aramcocapitalgroup.com>, <aramcoinvestment.com>, <aramcoinvestmentgroup.com>, <saudiaramcogas.com> and <saudiaramcosolar.com> (the "Domain Names") are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On April 25, 2018, 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 May 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 1, 2018.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 2018. 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 was founded in 1933 and is among the largest oil companies in the world. Based in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the Complainant is expected to have a market capitalization of USD 1 trillion to USD 1.5 trillion when it sells shares in 2018. The Complainant has an upcoming initial public offering. The Complainant runs operations in the United States and internationally, with subsidiaries and affiliates in the United Arab Emirates, the United States, China, Egypt, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Complainant owns United States Registration No. 4,541,437 for the ARAMCO trademark, registered on June 3, 2014. The Complainant also owns numerous other registrations and applications for the ARAMCO and SAUDI ARAMCO trademarks throughout the world, such as the European Union Registration No. 012676045, registered on August 15, 2014 and the European Union Registration No. 000918581, registered on December 1, 1999.

The Complainant is the owner of <aramco.com> domain name, which was registered on January 27, 1994. The Complainant has used "www.aramco.com" as the official website.

The Domain Names were registered on November 21, 2017 and resolve to registrar parking websites with pay-per-click links.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations and submits that its trademark is well known. The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant's trademark, with the mere addition of descriptive and/or common terms and the gTLD ".com". The addition of generic terms such as "capital group", "investment", "investment group", "gas" and "solar" to the Domain Names fails to alleviate confusion or distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's trademarks.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent's use does not constitute a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Names.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Names. The Complainant's trademark is famous. Moreover, the timing of the registration of the Domain Names, before the Complainant's upcoming initial public offering, indicates knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademarks. This also indicates bad faith. Likewise, the fact that the Domain Names resolve to parked pages to attract clicks and promote third parties, and the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks ARAMCO and SAUDI ARAMCO.

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name. In this case, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The addition of generic terms such as "capital group", "investment", "investment group", "gas" and "solar" to the Domain Names does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant's mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the gTLD ".com", see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register domain names containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's trademarks and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Names, in particular taking into account that the Complainant's trademark is well-known and the timing of the registration before the initial public offering.

The Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademarks. This indicates bad faith. Moreover, the Domain Names resolve to a parking page to attract clicks and promote third parties. The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter and the Complaint.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Names <aramcocapitalgroup.com>, <aramcoinvestment.com>, <aramcoinvestmentgroup.com>, <saudiaramcogas.com> and <saudiaramcosolar.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2018

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/