The Complainant is Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Innis Law Group LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Dasdasd Asdadasd, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 15, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 26, 2021 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 March 31, 2021. 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 April 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 7, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2021. 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 provides a wide range of goods and services, such as financial services, logistics, animal nutrition, fuel, sustainability, and food and beverage, in many countries around the world, and trades through its website “www.adm.com”. The Complainant owns several registrations for the trademark ADM, including United States registered trademark No. 1386430, registered on March 18, 1986, claiming first use in commerce in 1923. The ADM trademark is recognized as well known in former UDRP decisions. The Domain Name was registered on December 3, 2020. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error page and has been used for a phishing fraud by email. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registrations, argues that the Complainant’s trademark is well known, and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and the Respondent has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to set email accounts to fraudulently impersonate a staff member of the Complainant in an attempt to gain access to the Complainant’s employees’ login credentials. The Complainant believes the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s activity and prior trademark rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, evidenced by the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing scheme. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ADM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition “-it”. This does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. As described below, it is documented bad faith use by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent most likely was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Based on the case file, in particular the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Domain Name has been used for a phishing fraud by email. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”)”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
Sole Panelist
Date: May 31, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy