Equinor ASA v Owens Lauretta

WIPO Case No. D2025-0141

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Equinor ASA v. Owens Lauretta

Case No. D2025-0141

1. The Parties

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

Sweden.

The Respondent is Owens Lauretta, United States of America (“United States”)

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <equinorasaa.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2025, 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 (Redacted for privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 16, 2025, 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 January 16, 2025.

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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 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 is a Norwegian corporation developing oil, gas, wind and solar energy with operations in more than 30 countries. It was founded as The Norwegian State Oil Company (Statoil) in 1972, and its name was changed to the present name in 2018.

The Complainant has registered trademarks such as:

-	European Union Trademark Registration No. 17900772 for EQUINOR, registered on January 18,
2019;
-	International Trademark Registration No. 1444675 for EQUINOR, registered on July 4, 2018;
-	United States Trademark Registration No. 6436681 for EQUINOR, registered on August 3, 2021.

In addition, the Complainant is the owner of many domain name registrations containing its EQUINOR trademark such as <eqiunor.com>, <equinor-asa.com> and <equinor-asa.no>.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2025. It resolves to a website featuring a clickable folder labeled “cgi-bin”, followed by the headline “Index of /” at the top of the page, indicating that it was last updated on January 8, 2025 at 08:13.

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.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant.

In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

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

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

page 3

(iii)      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 for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark as a whole. Such fact
supports a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUINOR
trademark. The addition of the term “asaa” does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity.

WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.

Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 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.

The Panel finds that the Complainant made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent did not come forward with relevant evidence rebutting the prima facie case.

Accordingly, 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.

In the present case, in consideration of the fact that the Complainant has been doing business in energy sector since 1972, and the present name of the Complainant has been used since 2018, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent could have been unaware of the Complainant’s EQUINOR trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on January 8, 2025. Therefore, it is found that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

On the other hand, with regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, although the disputed domain name only displays a page with the text “index of /” and a clickable “cgi-bin” folder, the website does not have any content. According to the panel decisions, such non-use of the

page 4

disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 <equinorasaa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Masato Dogauchi/
Masato Dogauchi
Sole Panelist
Date: February 16, 2025