Did Halliburton file a cybersquatting complaint against itself?

Halliburton filed a cybersquatting case. The cybersquatter was ostensibly Halliburton itself.

World Intellectual Property Organization has published an interesting cybersquatting case decision.

Officially, the dispute is titled Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Hostmaster, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

The energy giant used to be the registrant of the domain name halliburton .jobs. In October, it filed a cybersquatting complaint against the domain name, stating that it was registered by the current registrant in September 2024.

However, the registrar’s verification included Halliburton’s information, which put the panelist in a bit of a quandary. Why is the company filing a cybersquatting case against a domain that it used to own, and does it still own it?

It’s certainly possible that someone stole the domain and kept the same contact info. Or it could have been auctioned off in a registrar expired domain auction, which is why the domain retained the 2005 registration date in Whois. But Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) didn’t try to explain what happened.

Panelist Georges Nahitchevansky wrote (pdf):

Complainant does not make a claim that the disputed domain name changed ownership at any time since its registration and simply claims without any explanation, let alone any evidence, that the disputed domain name was in fact registered on September 15, 2024. However, there is nothing in the record that establishes that some unrelated party registered the disputed domain name at that time, assumed control of the disputed domain name and/or obtained access to the disputed domain name for some nefarious purpose. The WhoIs provided by Complainant for the disputed domain name shows that the disputed domain name was registered on September 15, 2005, and that an update occurred on September 15, 2024. As Complainant has provided no information regarding this discrepancy, the Panel cannot conclude that the update date is somehow a change of ownership, particularly as updates to a registrar domain name record can simply be a change of IP address or email address, or the updating of contact information such as an address of the registrant.

Notably, Complainant was provided with the Registrar’s verification and given the opportunity to file an amended complaint and could have explained and provided evidence as to why the disputed domain name, registered using Complainant’s exact information, was not linked to Complainant or was under the control of some other unknown party unconnected to Complainant. However, Complainant did not substantively addressed this issue and simply chose to let the matter proceed against the named Respondent, which in this case, appears to be Complainant.

The panelist concluded:

As such, given Complainant’s silence on the issue and the lack of any evidence establishing that the disputed domain name was being used for an illicit purpose, there is a strong possibility that the disputed domain name was registered by or on behalf of Complainant.