WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Private by Design LLC / Chun Li Yung

Case No. D2019-3062

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., United States of America, represented by Polsinelli PC Law firm, United States of America ("United States" or "U.S.").

The Respondent is Whois Privacy, Private by Design LLC / Chun Li Yung, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <halliburton-ap.com> is registered with Porkbun 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 December 13, 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 December 17, 2020.

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 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 Richard G. Lyon as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and has jurisdiction to decide this administrative proceeding. The Panel has submitted his 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 Texas (United States)-based company that provides products and services to the energy industry around the world. It has been in business for more than 100 years and is well known particularly in the United States, by reason of its services in the Middle East. The Complainant holds a number of registered trademarks that incorporate the term HALLIBURTON in the United States and elsewhere. These trademarks date to 2002 and claim a first use in commerce of 1993. The Complainant's revenues exceeded USD 23 billion in 2018. To summarize, the Complainant is a substantial company with a wellknown and distinctive name and mark.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in August 2019. An Internet user who accesses the disputed domain name is automatically redirected to the home page of the Complainant's website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HALLIBURTON marks, that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel describes the Complainant's evidence in support of these contentions in the following section of this Decision.

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered HALLIBURTON marks but for the addition of “-ap” and the top-level domain “.com.” Its dominant feature is the Complainant's mark, which alone satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s marks. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. The Respondent has submitted no evidence or argument. Furthermore the use to which the Respondent has put the disputed domain name, discussed in the section on bad faith below, is plainly not legitimate. The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Means of misusing domain names have expanded in the two decades since the Policy has been in force. The Policy was once concerned primarily with holding a domain name that incorporated a trademark for ransom, see Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i) and (ii), and classic false designation of origin – misleading the public as to the origin of goods or services, see Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). As the ingenuity of abusers has broadened, the notion of bad faith has been expanded to address new forms of abuse. As pertinent to this proceeding, it is now generally accepted that bad faith includes imitating a mark owner to dupe Internet users into furnishing personal information, a practice commonly known as phishing. See, e.g., Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate, WIPO Case No. D2014-1742; Endemol Netherland B.V v. David Williams, WIPO Case No. D2010-1728. Here the Complainant accuses the Respondent of using the disputed domain name to induce two or more of the Complainant’s customers into sending future payments to a bank account controlled by the Respondent by sending an email purportedly from an employee of the Complainant with the new banking arrangements.

Several early UDRP cases alleging phishing as bad faith suffered from lack of evidence. While the scheme was pleaded in the complaint, complainants included scant evidence to support their allegations even though such evidence was presumably readily available to them. UDRP Panels were left to deny the complaint, see Alliance Healthcare Services Inc. v. [Name redacted] / Whois Agent, Whoisprivacy Protection Service Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-1666, or scramble for other pieces of available evidence, see Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC / Valero Energy Coroporation, WIPO Case No. D2017-0087.

The Complainant’s evidence in this case, in contrast, clearly supports its charges and is a textbook illustration of how simple that process can be.¹ The Complainant has included an affidavit from its security officer who investigated the customer’s complaint, detailing the scheme and including email communications (suitably redacted for privacy protection) in which the Respondent imitated the Complainant for this purpose. Here, the Panel is not required to make a finding of serious, probably criminal, conduct, solely upon counsel's unsworn word.

Automatically redirecting to the Complainant’s website and use of the Complainant's name in the offending emails indicate that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its mark when he registered the disputed domain name. The use to which he put the disputed domain name is bad faith incarnate. The Complainant has satisfied both prongs 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 disputed domain name <halliburton-ap.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Richard G. Lyon
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2020

¹ The affidavit is less than two pages in length and attaches two pages of relevant emails. The employee who made the affidavit had personal knowledge of the attempted scam.