Shell Tried Multiple Times to Kill My Website

Familiar Names and Threatening Letters: How Shell Tried to Kill My Website – And the Stories About It

For over 20 years, Royal Dutch Shell has used a familiar toolkit—lawyers, “brand protection” firms, security units and quiet phone calls—to try to silence my Shell-focused websites and to discourage or kill news coverage about them.

Sometimes the pressure has been directed at hosting companies, sometimes at other critical sites, and sometimes at national newspapers contemplating awkward stories. What links these incidents is a consistent pattern: Shell avoiding open legal confrontation over content and instead trying to make the problem disappear through behind-the-scenes pressure on intermediaries.

This article pulls those strands together using Shell’s own internal emails (obtained via subject access requests), correspondence from its lawyers and brand-protection agents, and my own records of what happened.

---

 

1. The 2021 “brand protection” ultimatum: five days to take the site down

 

On 22 July 2021, my then hosting provider forwarded me an “abuse” complaint they had received from a firm called Pointer Brand Protection & Research, acting “on behalf of Shell Brands International AG (‘Shell’)”. Pointer described my site at the time (royaldutchshell.website) as “the Infringing Website” and claimed:

• It displayed Shell trademarks and “unauthorized use of Shell copyright material”.

• It was causing confusion as to “the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Infringing Website and the products offered on the Infringing Website.” 

 

On that basis, Pointer demanded that my host:

“remove the infringing content expeditiously and permanently from your servers, or disable access to it in a swift and permanent manner within 5 days after receiving this letter.” 

In other words: shut the site down within five days or face consequences.

The letter was addressed to the hosting company, not to me.

A non-commercial “gripe site” misrepresented as a product shop

 

Pointer’s entire argument rested on a false premise: that my site was some kind of commercial outlet selling products.

In reality:

• The site has never charged subscription fees or taken donations.

• It carries no products for sale.

• Total income from the site since inception has been, as I wrote at the time, “ZERO. ZILCH. NOTHING.” 

 

In my reply (copied to CEO Ben van Beurden and Legal Director Donny Ching), I pointed out that:

• Shell’s agent cited no specific images said to infringe copyright.

• Many Shell logos on the site appeared on Don Marketing game pieces from promotions devised by my former company, for which I own the rights to display them following a 1999 High Court case (Donovan v Shell UK Ltd). 

• Other logos came from third-party photos or public sources, including historical material relating to Shell’s activities in Nazi Germany. 

 

I invited them to identify exactly what they thought infringed, rather than issue a blanket take-down threat.

I also reminded them that in 2005 a three-person expert panel at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)had already held that my use of Shell marks in domain names for a non-commercial criticism site was lawful “fair use” and rejected Shell’s attempt to seize my domains. Shell did not appeal that decision. 

The disclaimer Shell’s agents pretended not to see

 

Pointer’s letter claimed that my use of Shell’s trademarks “causes confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement” of my site.

In a follow-up email on 23 July 2021, I pointed out something impossible to miss if one had actually visited the home page: the prominent disclaimer at the top:

“This is not a Shell website nor is it officially endorsed by or affiliated with Royal Dutch Shell.” 

Far from pretending to be Shell, the entire content and tone make it clear that the site is an independent criticism and news site.

In my view, Pointer’s failure to mention that disclaimer—while painting the site as a kind of fake Shell shop—was not merely careless; it misrepresented the nature of the site to my host in order to justify a take-down.

---

 

2. Behind-the-back tactics: 2007 hosting pressure and Shell’s “war room”

 

The 2021 episode was not the first time Shell tried to shut down my site by leaning on infrastructure rather than confronting me directly.

Back in 2007, a previous hosting company briefly deactivated royaldutchshellplc.com after receiving threats from Shell. Initially, the host refused to say who was behind the pressure. Only later, when pressed, did they confirm that Shell had demanded action.

Around the same period, Shell’s Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) unit—staffed in part by former military and intelligence officers—was running what insiders described as a “war room” focused on my father and me:

• CAS produced quarterly “Focal Point” reports on our activities.

• Internal material showed monitoring of our websites and their impact on Shell staff and investors.

• One senior former intelligence officer involved in this operation was so disturbed by what he saw that he approached us and became a long-term insider source. 

 

In other words, Shell had opted for a covert security response to a lawful criticism site.

When I confronted Shell’s legal director at the time about the 2007 hosting incident, he eventually confirmed in writing that Shell had been in direct contact with our hosting company. The pattern—working through intermediaries to achieve what could not easily be justified in open court—was already visible.

---

 

3. Familiar names and threatening letters: nuclearcrimes.com

 

My site is not the only Shell-critical website to have faced this kind of pressure.

In 2000, George Monbiot reported in The Guardian that Shell was seeking to close nuclearcrimes.com, a site run by John Dyer which made serious allegations about Shell’s historic handling of nuclear materials and waste at Thornton/Stanlow—allegations Shell has always strongly denied.

Dyer’s own account, still available on his site, describes how:

• Shell’s solicitors DJ Freeman wrote to his first host, Easyspace, accusing the site of being false and defamatory.

• Easyspace pulled the site entirely “at Shell’s instigation”.

• Similar letters were then sent to subsequent hosts and connectivity providers, warning that entire domains could be jeopardised if they continued to host his material.

 

Whatever view one takes of Dyer’s underlying allegations, the method is familiar:

Don’t confront the author in open court; instead, frighten the intermediaries and make the website disappear.

Two decades later, the names have changed—DJ Freeman replaced by a “brand protection and research” outfit, tradtional solicitors’ letters replaced by five-day “abuse” ultimatums—but the underlying strategy is the same. Whether the target is nuclearcrimes.com or royaldutchshellplc.com, Shell prefers threatening letters to intermediaries over a public legal test of the content.

---

 

4. Killing not just sites but stories: The Sunday Times and the FT

 

Shell’s attempts to suppress criticism have not been confined to websites. Internal emails disclosed to me under data-protection laws show that, in 2007 (and again in 2010), senior Shell people quietly considered putting pressure on national newspapers in relation to my activities and my site.

The Sunday Times: “put pressure… to kill the article”

 

In February 2007, an internal Shell email recorded an intention to “put pressure on The Sunday Times” to kill an article about our intervention in the Sakhalin-2 project. 

That article—by journalist Steven Swinford—was due to run that weekend. On the Saturday morning, he read the entire draft over the phone to me. Among other things, it:

• Reported that our activities had contributed to a chain of events which, according to the article, ultimately cost Shell around £11 billion in relation to Sakhalin-2.

• Included an interview with Russian government official Oleg Mitvol, to whom I had supplied leaked Shell internal communications.

• Quoted Mitvol making damaging remarks about Shell management.

 

The article was ready to go. Then, by coincidence or otherwise, it was pulled before publication.

Shortly afterwards, also by coincidence or otherwise, The Sunday Times carried a glossy Shell/Ferrari advertorial—a full-colour piece promoting Shell’s association with Ferrari in Formula 1.

I do not claim to know exactly what was said between Shell and the newspaper. I do know this:

• An internal Shell email shows an intention to apply pressure to kill the story.

• The story vanished at the last moment.

• A Shell advertorial appeared soon after.

• Shell operated a “News Management Grid“.

 

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

The Financial Times: a similar instinct

The same SAR material includes an internal suggestion about Shell putting pressure on the Financial Times in relation to my website. The wording is more tentative than in the Sunday Times email, but the instinct is recognisable:

• Treat critical coverage not as part of a free press doing its job,

• but as a problem to be managed through quiet pressure on editors and publishers.

 

Again, the common denominator is Shell’s preference for back-channel influence rather than open engagement with the substance of the criticism.

---

 

5. Libel: who sued whom?

 

Pointer’s 2021 letter, endorsed by Shell, claimed my activities cause damage to Shell’s business and reputation. If Shell truly believed that damage to be dishonest or unfair, it could have brought libel proceedings against me long ago.

It has not.

For clarity—because this is sometimes misrepresented—the libel history is as follows:

• In the 1990s, we sued Shell twice for libel.

• In response, Shell filed counterclaims in respect of two other actions we had brought (for breach of contract and breach of copyright).

• Those counterclaims were ultimately withdrawn by Shell; they did not succeed in court.

 

Since then, despite repeatedly complaining that my site is damaging, Shell has never sued me for defamation over its content. Instead, it has:

• Launched WIPO domain name proceedings (which failed).

• Pressured hosting companies in 2007 and 2021.

• Considered or attempted pressure on national newspapers contemplating coverage of my activities.

• Engaged security units and external intelligence/PR firms to monitor and counter my work. 

 

As I wrote in 2021:

“If Shell believes our allegations are false and defamatory, it can issue libel proceedings. It has not done so because it knows that much of what we publish is supported by Shell’s own documents and by independent, reputable sources.”

---

 

6. How I responded – and why shareholders should care

 

In response to the 2021 ultimatum, I chose to be both firm and pragmatic:

• I removed a small number of images where I was uncertain of the precise rights position.

• I replaced a modern Shell logo with a version from Wikimedia Commons, clearly in the public domain.

• I re-structured some material to make its “fair use” character even clearer.

 

All of this was done without any admission of infringement, and explicitly “without prejudice” to my legal position. 

More importantly, I did the one thing Shell most wanted to avoid: I published the story of the take-down attempt itself, including the Pointer letter, my replies, and the history of similar episodes. 

The five-day deadline came and went. The site is still here.

From a shareholder’s point of view, this matters for several reasons:

• It reveals a company that responds to criticism with covert pressure and legal bluster, rather than open debate.

• It shows a willingness to misrepresent facts (for example, pretending a non-commercial gripe site sells “products”) in order to justify heavy-handed action.

• It raises uncomfortable questions about how Shell deals with journalists and editors behind the scenes when negative stories are in play.

• It underscores a broader pattern in which reputation risk is managed not by changing behaviour, but by trying to kill or marginalise the channels through which that behaviour becomes known.

 

For decades, my sites have published leaked documents, court papers, historical material and commentary about Shell. Some of it is deeply uncomfortable for the company. Shell is entitled to disagree. It is entitled to present its own narrative. It has always been entitled to sue me if it thinks it can prove libel.

What it is not, in my view, entitled to do is:

• mischaracterise a criticism site as a commercial counterfeit shop,

• lean on hosting companies and other intermediaries with threatening letters,

• and quietly press newspapers to “kill” stories that have been properly sourced and prepared for publication.

 

Shell’s attempts to kill my site, and to kill stories about it, have failed so far.

But the way it has tried is, in itself, a story shareholders, journalists and the wider public deserve to see in full daylight.

Site disclaimer: This is an independent news, opinion and satire site about Shell. It is not affiliated with Shell Plc or any of its subsidiaries. Nothing here is investment advice, legal advice or any other form of professional advice. For full details click on our Disclaimer.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.