À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Afton Chemical Corporation v. Anene Obi

Case No. D2019-0086

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Afton Chemical Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Anene Obi of Berlin, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aftonchemcial.com> (the “Disputed 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 January 15, 2019. On January 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 17, 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 January 17, 2019 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 January 19, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 January 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2019.

The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2019. 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 global developer and manufacturer of fuel and lubricant oils and provides services in relation to these products. The Complainant has used its name and trademark since 2004 and has registered trademarks for AFTON CHEMICAL in the United States (e.g., United States Reg. No. 3059527, registered on February 14, 2006) and other jurisdictions in relation to the products and services that it provides under that trademark. Certain of those trademark registrations are set out in Annex 5 to the Complaint and copies of the certificates of registration of those trademark are set out in Annex 6 to the Complaint.

All that is known about the Respondent is the name Anene Obi of Berlin, Germany.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 3, 2018, and resolves to an inactive website. The Respondent appears as “GDPR Masked” in the WhoIs for the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant first became aware of the Disputed Domain Name on November 13, 2018, when it received a copy of an email from a customer purporting to be from an Afton Chemical Customer Relationship Supervisor, requesting payment to what was described as a sister company bank account in Hong Kong. This was forwarded to the Complainant by the customer in question, who had become suspicious. The relevant emails are set out in Annex 4 to the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights and notes that it is the proprietor of the registered trademarks set out above and trades as AFTON CHEMICAL, also as set out above.

The Complainant goes on to set out that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly similar to its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, the only difference being the reversal of the “i” and the “c”.

The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in its entirety, subject to the typographical error already noted. The Complainant goes on to submit that numerous UDRP panels have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark.

The Complainant states that typosquatted domain names are in fact intended to be confusing, so that Internet users, who unwillingly make common type errors, will enter the typosquatted domain name instead of the correctly-spelled trademark and that this is a classic example of typosquatting.

The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in which it has rights and asks the Panel to find in the Complainant’s favour on the first element of the UDRP.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant states that is has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL. The Complainant goes on to state that it has found no evidence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name. In particular, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has gone to the extent of requesting that its personal data be hidden by the use of a privacy proxy service.

With regard to the possible use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, the Complainant notes the instance of phishing set out in Annex 4 to the Complaint.

The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant sets out that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

The Complainant notes that the registration and use of the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL dates back to 2004, which is well before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name knowing of the Complainant’s operation and trademark, which would all lead to the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

With regard to use in bad faith, the Complainant points to what it calls the misleading use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scam, documented in Annex 4 to the Complaint, and that this is an instance of typosquatting by the Respondent. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Remedy Requested by the Complainant

The Complainant requests that the Panel decides that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established registered rights in its trademark AFTON CHEMICAL. The Complainant owns registered trademarks for AFTON CHEMICAL in the United States, the application for which dates back to 2004, which is over 10 years before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL in its entirety, subject to two letters being added or changed, and this amounts to typosquatting, as the Complainant submits.

The Panel also accepts that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is standard registration requirement disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AFTON CHEMICAL, in which it has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no suggestion or evidence that the Complainant has authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark; the original use of that trademark and business name and the registered AFTON CHEMICAL trademark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by a considerable number of years.

Further, it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Panel finds that such use as has taken place of the Disputed Domain Name, was not legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and had the effect and the intention, in which it could have succeeded, misleadingly to divert consumers the Complainant by the fraudulent attempt to have money transferred, following the email using the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been met.

A. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 3, 2018 by the Respondent, well after the Complainant’s first use of its AFTON CHEMICAL trademark in 2004. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name connected with fraudulent emails seeking payment from a customer of the Complainant (Annex 4 to the Complaint).

The Panel finds, on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent, by using the Disputed Domain Name in the way already described in this Decision registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business, including by typosquatting. The Panel has already found that it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s AFTON CHEMICAL trademark when registering the Dispute Domain Name.

The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met.

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 <aftonchemcial.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Date: March 11, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/