The Complainant is BASF SE of Ludwigshafen, Germany, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Dust Cravings, LVC Inc. of Ikeja, Lagos 234, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 10, 2017. On November 10, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 11, 2017, 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.
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 November 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 18, 2017.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2018. 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 owns many registered trademarks for a range of chemical and scientific goods and services consisting of the word “BASF”, including International Registration Nos. 638794 of May 3, 1995 and 909293 of October 31, 2006.also registered in Nigeria (Complaint annexes 5 and 6)..
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 29, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website “www.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered BASF trademarks.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark right and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its respective trademark or service mark.
Based on the trademark registration records submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant had registered the marks BASF in many jurisdictions including Nigeria (the Respondent’s residence country).
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name consists of the three parts, i.e., “basf”, “online” and a dash mark, before the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s registered marks BASF entirely, despite the non-distinguishable dash mark and the general word “online” added to “basf”, is not substantively differentiable from the Complainant’s BASF marks.
The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name , as a whole, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks BASF. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides the evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name .
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be applied here. The Respondent’s silence on this matter also enables the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Since there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name , the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent does not rebut the Complainant’s contentions.
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website “www.”, on which the Complainant’s trademarks BASF are prominently showed along with the Complainant’s logo, slogan “We create chemistry” and business introduction. The website front page of the disputed domain name shows that the contact email address is “contact@”.
The Panel notes that the Complainant sufficiently proves that its marks BASF are highly well-known, particularly in chemistry industry, through centuries’ use and promotion. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s mark BASF on the website with the contents that are either copied from the Complainant or fabricated for the Respondent’s interests is very likely to confuse and attract the Internet users who attempt to access online the information of the Complainant’s marks or goods.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), and the Complainant has successfully proven paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy