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

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Albert D’suza

Case No. D2019-3060

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Polsinelli PC, United States.

The Respondent is Albert D’suza, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)

The disputed domain name <halliburton.group> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 12, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same day 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 December 17, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendments to 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 December 24, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a supplier of goods and services to the energy industry.

The Complainant is licensed by its parent company, The Halliburton Company, to use numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the name and mark HALLIBURTON. Those registrations include, for example, Unites States trademark number 2575819 for the word mark HALLIBURTON, registered on June 4, 2002 in Classes 37, 40 and 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 12, 2019.

There is no evidence that any active use has been made of the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it is one of the world’s largest suppliers of goods and services to the energy sector with over 60,000 employees operating in approximately 80 countries. Its turnover in 2018 was USD 23.9 billion. The Complainant provides evidence of 370 registrations for the HALLIBURTON trademark in 60 countries and states that it has also registered numerous domain names incorporating that mark, operating its principal website at “www.halliburton.com”. The Complainant contends that, as a result of these matters, its HALLIBURTON mark has become widely recognized and respected and is a source of significant goodwill for the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which it has rights. Specifically, it contends that the disputed domain name comprises its HALLIBURTON mark exactly and that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.group” should be disregarded for the purpose of comparison.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its HALLIBURTON trademark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant highlights that the Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name at all.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see e.g. Telstra Corporation, Inc. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) and that the Panel should take into account the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and the lack of any evidence of bona fide use on the part of the Respondent. It contends in these circumstances that the disputed domain name can only have been registered for the purposes of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and the deception of Internet users.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has provided false contact details by including the Complainant’s “Halliburton” name in its registration information. The Complainant also contends that the postcode stated in the Respondent’s contact address does not correspond to Singapore.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Even in a case where no formal Response has been filed, the Complainant must still establish that each of the three above elements is present.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in numerous jurisdictions for the name and mark HALLIBURTON. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, ignoring the gTLD which is to be disregarded for the purpose of comparison. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainants’ submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that its trademark HALLIBURTON is distinctive and that it has become widely known throughout the world as a result of the Complainant’s significant commercial activity under that mark. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s widely-known trademark and that the Respondent has offered no explanation for its registration or any intended use of the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel infers that the Respondent is more likely than not to have registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attaching to that trademark. The Panel finds, therefore, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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 disputed domain name, <halliburton.group> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: January 28, 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/