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

Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Raman Shuk

Case No. D2020-1469

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bechtel Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Raman Shuk, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bechtelproject.com> is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 2020, 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 June 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2020.

The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 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 the holding company for a large group of international construction, procurement and engineering companies. Founded in 1898, the Complainant has completed more than 25,000 projects across 160 countries on all seven continents and in 2019 employed approximately 38,000 people. Several projects, which the Complainant has managed, include, among others, the Hoover Dam, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Jubail Industrial City, and the Chunnel, as well as, particularly in India, the Jamnagar refining complex on the northwestern coast and the KG D6 gas development project in the Bay of Bengal.

The Complainant has used the BECHTEL trademark since 1925 and owns various trademark registrations for this mark (collectively the “BECHTEL mark”), including:

- Indian Registration No. 728390, registered on December 26, 1996 in class 9;
- Indian Registration No. 729673, registered on December 24, 1996 in class 16;
- European Union Registration No. 003514809 registered on July 7, 2005 in classes 37 and 42; and
- United States Registration No. 1047369 registered on August 31, 1976, in classes 37 and 42.

The Complainant further owns the domain name <bechtel.com> (registered on June 20, 1994), which is linked to its corporate website in connection with its products and services.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 22, 2019. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was redirected to the Complainant’s official website before filing the Complaint. Currently, the disputed domain name is not linked to an active website

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:

The Complainant contends that its trademark BECHTEL is well-known throughout the world, and its official website, under its primary domain name <bechtel.com>, is ranked as one of the most popular websites worldwide by Alexa.com.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BECHTEL mark. The generic Top-Level Domain “gTLD”) “.com” is a standard technical requirement that should be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Further, the use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s website, and the addition of the term “project”, which is closely related to the Complainant’s work (that revolves around complex and major engineering projects), contribute to the confusion and likelihood of association.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, and has not been given permission to use the BECHTEL mark in any manner, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. Further, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as allowed under Policy. The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The continuous extensive use since 1925 and well-known character of the BECHTEL mark, the fact that this mark has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name, adding a term (“project”) related to the Complainant’s work, and the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website indicate that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the Respondent’s use of a domain name to resolve to the Complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith registration and use, as it is inherent in such conduct the risk that the Respondent may at any time redirect Internet traffic to a different website not belonging to the Complainant. The Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and subsequent reminders.

The Complainant has cited various decisions under the Policy that it considers supportive of its position, and requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy and the dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy. The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. In such cases, the addition of terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. It is further to be noted that the applicable gTLD in a domain name is considered a standard technical registration requirement and, as such, is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Complainant indisputably has rights in the registered trademark BECHTEL. The disputed domain name incorporates the BECHTEL mark in its entirety followed by the term “project”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the mark. The BECHTEL mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the gTLD “.com” is a technical requirement, generally disregarded for the purpose of the analysis of the confusing similarity. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the Complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the Respondent’s knowledge. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts to the Respondent the burden of production to come forward with relevant evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant’s assertions and evidence effectively shift the burden to the Respondent of producing evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, providing the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, without limitation, that may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. However, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, not providing any explanation or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

A core factor in assessing fair use of a domain name is that it does not falsely suggest affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety adding the term “project”, which refers to the Complainant’s business or activity managing construction and engineering projects. Therefore, the Panel considers that the addition of the term “project” reinforces the risk of implied affiliation and confusion

The Panel further notes the extensive presence over the Internet of the BECHTEL mark, its use internationally, and its notoriety in the engineering sector. The Panel has verified the evidence submitted by the Complainant regarding the notoriety of the BECHTEL mark worldwide, including India, where the Respondent is located according to the WhoIs record of the disputed domain name. In India, the Complainant has managed various complex engineering projects, and the Complainant’s official website is ranked as popular by an independent analysis company (Alexa.com), reaching in this country over 30% of its total audience. The Panel, in use of the general powers articulated in the Policy, has consulted the Complainant’s corporate website, and has corroborated through various searches over the Internet the use of the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel considers that the redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website cannot be considered as a bona fide commercial or as a fair use under the Policy, in case the composition or nature of the disputed domain name effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

It is further remarkable the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint or to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and subsequent reminders, not providing any explanation connected to any of the circumstances included in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or any other circumstance that may be considered as a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All the above-mentioned circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case, and all the cumulative facts and circumstances indicate the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the second element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, being the Panel prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See section 4.2, WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Panel considers that all cumulative circumstances of this case point to bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BECHTEL in its entirety adding a term (“project”) referring to the Complainant’s activity, which reinforces the likelihood of confusion or implied affiliation, suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant; (ii) the Complainant’s trademark is notorious in its sector; (iii) the Complainant operates internationally, including India (where the Respondent is located according to the WhoIs record of the disputed domain name); (iv) in India, the Complainant has managed notorious complex engineering projects and its official website is considered and ranked as popular by a third party independent analyzer; (v) the disputed domain name has not been used by the Respondent, being redirected to the Complainant’s official website; and (vi) the Respondent has not offered any explanation of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, choosing not to reply to the Complaint.

It is further to be noted that non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3, WIPO Overview 3.0. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name was very likely registered targeting the BECHTEL mark with the intention of obtaining any sort of free ride on the established reputation of the Complainant, probably seeking to mislead Internet users to believe that there is a connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, which constitutes bad faith.

All of the above-mentioned circumstances leads the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the third element 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 disputed domain names <bechtelproject.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Reyes Campello Estebaranz
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 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/