The Complainant is Lanxess Deutschland GmbH of Cologne of Germany, represented by Wolpert Rechsanwälte, Germany.
The Respondent is Joey Beatty of Kokomo, Indiana, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2018. On February 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 1, 2018, 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 March 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2018.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 9, 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 is LANXESS Deutschland GmbH, owner of ARLANXEO Deutschland GmbH, a synthetic rubber company. The company’s core business is the development, manufacturing and marketing of chemical intermediates, additives, specialty chemicals and plastics.
The Complainant is the owner of the following International Trademark Registrations, among others:
- ARLANXEO (word) European Union Trade Mark No. 015078348 registered on August 17, 2016.
Furthermore, ARLANXEO is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Registration No. 5135703, which it was registered on February 7, 2017.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 14, 2018.
The Disputed Domain Name was used for sending emails with the purpose of giving the impression that those emails were sent by the Chief Executive Officer of ARLANXEO and resolves to an inactive webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar
The Disputed Domain Name uses the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the ending “-de”.
The addition of the “-” sign and the two letters “de” to the trademark only generates more confusion to Internet users, since they will perceive it as an indication of origin of the Complainant, which in this case is settled in Germany. Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has not granted any licenses or other rights to use the trademark ARLANXEO in the Disputed Domain Name or to register any domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name; he only uses the Disputed Domain Name in the field of interest of the Complainant to appear to be the Complainant itself. Registration and use in bad faith
The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s ARLANXEO trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name, since he started sending emails with the address of the Disputed Domain Name, giving the impression that he is a Chief Executive Officer of ARLANEXEO, using the name of one of current employees working at ARLANXEO. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark ARLANXEO. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark as its only distinctive element.
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s ARLANXEO trademark in its entirety; the addition at the end of the term “-de” does not change this finding since it can be inferred as an indication of origin of the Company, leading to the conclusion that the Company is settled in Germany as it is in this case.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
I. Before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
II. You (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
III. You are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.
There is no evidence of the existence of any rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests, but he did not reply to the Complainant’s contention.
In fact the record of the case shows that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for sending emails with the address of the Disputed Domain Name, giving the impression that he is a member of the Complainant. This is not a legitimate interest.
As such the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 14, 2018; the Complainant ARLANXEO trademark was granted on August 17, 2016.
The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. However the Complainant has provided compelling evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and was used for unlawful purposes, namely to function as a means to defraud individuals through fake identities with an associated e-mail address to the Disputed Domain name.
Thus the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s name and trademark rights, and set out to defraud third parties by deliberately misappropriating the Complainant’s trademark, using a fake email associated to the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate an employee of the Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith in a particularly pernicious form, and is exactly the form of abusive registration and use which the Policy is intended to prevent. See Magna International Inc. v. Roger Wells and William Green,WIPO Case No. D2017-0888.
The third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is, therefore, satisfied. 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.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy