The Complainant is SOLVAY Société Anonyme, Belgium, represented internally.
The Respondent is Yassine Boubakri, Yassine Boubakri, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 13, 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 the Complainant on September 13, 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 September 14.
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 September 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 5, 2021.
The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a global leader in chemicals. It was founded in 1863 and is listed on the European Stock Exchange. The Complainant is headquartered in Belgium and has around 24,100 employees in 64 countries.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for the word mark SOLVAY, including the European trademark registration No. 000067801 registered on May 30, 2000, in numerous classes.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2021, it used to resolve to a parking page and at the time of this decision, it does not resolve to an active website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends in essence:
- that the Complainant’s trademark SOLVAY is well-known throughout the world;
- that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SOLVAY because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the descriptive term “support” does nothing to obviate confusion;
- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties;
- that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to send fraudulent phishing emails;
- that the Respondent failed to respond to emails send by the Complainant on September 9 and September 10, 2021.
B. RespondentThe Respondent has not submitted a response.
6. Discussion and FindingsAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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 SimilarThe Complainant has shown that it holds, among others, the European Union trademark registration No. 000067801 registered on May 30, 2000 for the word mark SOLVAY.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SOLVAY, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the word “support” and of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties.
The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainant has credibly shown that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights in order to send fraudulent phishing emails to customers of the Complainant.
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, however, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name in bad faith to send fraudulent phishing emails. The non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding and the use to send phishing email is evidence of bad faith(see sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
Under these circumstances, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2021