The Complainant is Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Partridge Partners PC, United States.
The Respondent is Moses Ruraara, Uganda. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 4, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 6, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 8, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 8, 2020. On May 9, 2020, the Center received an email communication from a party claiming to represent the registrant of the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2020, the Center invited the parties to seek an extension of the proceeding pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Rules. On May 12, 2020, the Complainant indicated that it did not agree to any suspension. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any Response. The Center appointed Steven Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 2020. 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 company located in New York, United States. It is a subsidiary of Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. and is part of a group of more than 160 companies operating worldwide in business sectors including petrochemicals, plastics, health and crop sciences, and pharmaceuticals. The Complainant operates a website at “www.sumichem.com”. The Complainant’s parent company is the owner of numerous registrations throughout the world for the trademark SUMITOMO. Such registrations include, for example: - United States trademark number 879800 for the word mark SUMITOMO, registered on November 4, 1969 for goods and services including medicines and pharmaceutical preparations in Class 18; - European Union Trade Mark number 283515 for the word mark SUMITOMO, registered on August 5, 1998 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, and 5 including chemicals. The disputed domain name was registered on January 6, 2020. The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website at “www.sumitomochemicals.com” which purports to be a website operated by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the name and mark SUMITOMO was coined by its parent company and that it and its affiliated entities have traded under that name and mark since at least 1955. It provides evidence of its global trademark portfolio and submits that it has extensively promoted publicity under the SUMITOMO mark such that the mark has become well known and distinctive. The Complainant exhibits extracts from its website in support of that contention. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SUMITOMO trademark. It contends in particular that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates that mark together with the addition of the dictionary term “chemicals”. The Complainant submits the addition of this term does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, particularly in circumstances where the term is descriptive of the Complainant’s own activities. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its SUMITOMO trademark, that the Respondent has not been commonly known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a fraudulent website which impersonates the Complainant and for the purpose of sending misleading emails with intent to commit fraud. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It states that the website to which the disputed domain name has resolved pretends to be the Complainant’s own website, includes content, text, and images lifted from the Complainant’s website and includes the Complainant’s own links and contact details. The Complainant states that the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name to email third parties, impersonating the Complainant and attempting to extract financial information from them. The Complainant contends that, in the light of its use of the Complainant’s own information, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. It further contends that, by using the disputed domain name for the purposes of impersonation and fraud, the Respondent has sought both to disrupt the Complainant’s business (paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy) and to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that its parent company is the owner of longstanding registered trademark rights in the name and mark SUMITOMO, which the Complainant has used in commerce for many years. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the mark SUMITOMO is a coined term that has become distinctive of the Complainant and its services. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s SUMITOMO mark together with the addition of the dictionary term “chemicals”. The Complainant’s trademark is therefore plainly recognizable and the Panel finds, accordingly, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant, which cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such (claimed) rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel accepts the Complainant’s uncontradicted evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a website which misrepresents itself as the Complainant’s website, reproduces images and text from the Complainant’s genuine website, and provides the Complainant’s contact details and links. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s uncontradicted submissions that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send emails to third parties, purporting to come from the Complainant, seeking to obtain financial details from those individuals. In the light of these findings, it is clearly to be inferred that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its SUMITOMO trademark at the date it registered the disputed domain name and did so for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant and taking unfair advantage of its trademark. Further, in the light of its finding that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a fraudulent website which impersonates the Complainant and to send misleading emails, the Panel concludes that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has attempted for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: June 30, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy