The Complainant is BASF SE, Germany, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC / Joao Evangelista, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2020. On July 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 17, 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 July 20, 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 amended Complaint on July 27, 2020 The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 17, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 18, 2020. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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 German company which engages in the manufacture and sale of chemicals worldwide The Complainant owns more than 1500 trademarks rights for BASF worldwide, such as: - BASF International Trademark Registration No. 638794, registered on May 3, 1995; and - BASF International Trademark Registration No. 909293, registered on October 31, 2006. In addition, previously UDRP Panels recognized BASF as a famous trademark. Moreover, the Complainant holds numerous domain names incorporating the BASF trademark, such as: - - - The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that it is a clear-cut typosquatting case. The Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the BASF trademark and likely to create confusion in the mind of the general public. The only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark lies in the adjunction of the letter “z” in the Disputed Domain Name. Rights or legitimate interest The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent has no trademark or service mark related to BASF term. The Respondent has no license or authorization to reproduce the Complainant’s BASF trademark. Moreover, the Respondent use of the Disputed Domain Name does not demonstrate a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page of the official Brazilian website of the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant’s trademark BASF predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant contends that BASF trademarks are widely known. Thus, it is inconceivable that the Respondent ignored the Complainant’s prior rights in the BASF trademarks. In this sense, the Respondent had the Complainant’s name and BASF trademark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name. A simple search on an online search engine would have been sufficient for the Respondent to know the Complainant and BASF trademark. In addition, the Complainant states that the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name with the purpose of creating a false impression of affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. 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 Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) The Disputed 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 Moreover, the misspelling is also hardly noticeable and results in a very minor modification of the Complainant’s trademark. This is classic example of typo-squatting. As section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. (…) Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.” Therefore, the Panel concludes 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, or 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 of those 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. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case unrebutted by the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, he had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 May 23, 2020, while the Complainant BASF International Trademark BASF, Registration No. 638794 was registered on May 1995. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since it is a typographical misspelling of and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known BASF trademark. (SeeWIPO Case No. D2010-2000, BASF SE v Jim Wesh andWIPO Case No. D2014-1889 BASF SE v. jing liu/liujing). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights when he registered the Disputed Domain Name. The circumstances in the case before this Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BASF trademark by redirecting the Disputed Domain Name to the official Brazilian webpage of the Complainant. The Panel finds from the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent is seeking to create an appearance of association with the Complainant’s trademark. The Disputed Domain Name Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, this Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and using the Disputed Domain Name 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, Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy