Complainant is The Chemours Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”), represented by Bates & Bates, LLC, United States.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Canada / traxi trans Inc., United States (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”). 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 11, 2021. On May 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2021, 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 Complainant on May 12, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 14, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 29, 2021. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 Complainant is a global chemical company with a wide range of chemical products. Complainant is the owner of the CHEMOURS trademark registration, which consists of “chem”, a reference to chemicals, and “ours”, a reference to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, who spun off Complainant earlier. (Bolding indicates portion used in Complainant’s registered trademark.) Complainant registered the domain name Complainant is also the owner of the CHEMOURS trademark, which is registered in numerous jurisdictions around the world. Complaint, Annex 3. Complainant uses the domain names and trademarks in conjunction with its chemicals business around the world. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 16, 2021. Complaint, Annex 1. On March 17, 2021, Respondent used the disputed domain name to target Complainant’s customers in emails requesting that the customers change sensitive bank account information in the Asia Pacific region. Complaint, Annex 13. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is currently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered CHEMOURS registered trademarks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” (Rules, paragraph 15(a)) Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEMOURS registered trademark which was registered several years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a misspelling or an example of a deliberate typographical error, since it is only a transposition of two of the letters in Complainant’s CHEMOURS trademark, transposing the “o” and “u” in While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the almost impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent began using the disputed domain name the day after Respondent registered it to contact Complainant’s customers, requesting that the contacted customers change sensitive bank information in the Asia Pacific region. The Panel finds that such brazen and immediate use of the disputed domain name to pose as Complainant and attempt to convince Complainant’s customers to change sensitive banking information constitutes bad faith registration and use. 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, M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: July 14, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy