Equinor ASA v blessing uhunagho

WIPO Case No. D2024-4816

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Equinor ASA v. blessing uhunagho

Case No. D2024-4816

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equinor ASA, Norway, represented by Rouse AB (Valea AB trading as Rouse AB),

Sweden.

The Respondent is blessing uhunagho, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <equinorworld.com> is registered with SRS AB (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21,
2024. On November 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2024, 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 (Protected Protected, Shield WhoIs) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4,
2024, 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 amendment to the

Complaint on December 8, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment 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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 29, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any formal response but sent an email communication to the Center on December 4, 2024. Accordingly, the Center notified Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on January 5, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Stefan Bojovic as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2025. 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 formerly known as Statoil and was founded as the Norwegian State Oil Company in 1972 and later changed its name to Equinor in 2018. The Complainant is an international energy company with operations in more than 30 countries developing oil, gas, wind, and solar energy.

The Complainant is the owner of number of registered trademarks for the EQUINOR trademark, including the following:

-	International trademark registration No. 1444675 for EQUINOR, registered on July 4, 2018;
-	European Union trademark registration No. 017900772 for EQUINOR, registered on January 18,
2019;
-	Norwegian trademark registration No. 298813 for EQUINOR, registered on June 12, 2018.

Furthermore, the Complainant is the owner of more than 100 domain name registrations containing the

EQUINOR trademark, such as <eqiunor.com>, registered on March 15, 2018.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint,
it resolved to a website that purportedly copies the official website of the Complainant. At the time of the

Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The additional word “world” does not prevent a finding of confusingly similarity and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.

With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the EQUINOR trademark in connection with a website, a domain name or for any other purpose. The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.

With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent was fully aware of the fact that the disputed domain name incorporated a well-recognized and distinctive EQUINOR trademark in which the Respondent had absolutely no prior rights. The use of the disputed

domain name for a look-a-like of the Complainant’s official website generates the impression to Internet users that the Complainant is behind the website. The Complainant believes that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to
the domain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates that the complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The entirety of the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. purposes of the Policy.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “world”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

In addition, it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, can be disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel, therefore, finds that the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with

page 4

relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel notes that there seems to be no relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark. There appears to be no element from which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Based on the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that appears to copy the official website of the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel also finds that the structure of the disputed domain name, which contains the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark in its entirety in combination with word “world” carries a risk of implied affiliation, especially having in mind the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark that seems to be a coined word exclusively used by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1

Having in mind the above, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

and its EQUINOR trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The content of the website to which the disputed domain name used to resolve leaves no room for a doubt on the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its EQUINOR trademark and evidences that the Respondent actually had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It should be also borne in mind that that the registration and use of EQUINOR trademark (coinciding with the Complainant’s change of business name in 2018) predates the registration of the disputed domain name by six years, making it unlikely that the	In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been well-aware of the Complainant name
Due to the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
As previously indicated, based on the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used for a website that appears to copy the official website of the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the

page 5

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

While the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website, such inactivity does not prevent a finding of bad faith given the totality of the circumstances of the case at hand. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been both registered and is being used in bad faith, and consequently that the Complainant has established 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 name <equinorworld.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Stefan Bojovic/
Stefan Bojovic
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2025