WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Equinor ASA v. Fred Wallace Case No. D2019-0720 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equinor ASA, Norway, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Fred Wallace, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 29, 2019. On March 29, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2019, 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. On the same date, the Center sent an email to the Parties in English and Russian regarding the language of the proceedings. On April 2, 2019, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceedings.

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 May 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 22, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2019.

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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 Norway based international energy company with operations in about 30 countries around the world developing oil, gas, wind and solar energy. The Complainant was founded in 1972 and changed its name to Equinor ASA as announced on March 15, 2018. The Complainant owns a number of EQUINOR trademarks including European Union Trademark No. 017900772 filed on May 15, 2018 and registered on January 18, 2019.

The Complainant owns about 100 domain names containing the EQUINOR mark.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 20, 2018 and resolves into inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. Adding a descriptive term “bid” to the disputed domain name does not preclude similarity. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not sufficient to prevent the similarity either. Considering the brand awareness of the trademark EQUINOR worldwide, an Internet user would most probably assume a connection with the Complainant and its business when seeking information on a website with the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This is based on the Complainant’s prior use of its trademark and company name Equinor. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name is not used with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use intent. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark indicate a deliberate attempt to capture Internet users into believing that this site is in some way associated with, authorized by or connected to the Complainant, especially the Complainant’s procurement process. The disputed domain name was registered to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s famous trademark. In December 2018 the Complainant filed a complaint against the same Respondent regarding , which resulted in transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. Therefore, registration of the disputed domain name is a part of a flagrant pattern of conduct. In the previous UDRP case the Respondent distributed fraudulent emails. Since MX-records are set up for the disputed domain name there is a high risk that fraudulent emails are sent again in the name of the Complainant. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s con