The Complainant is SOLVAY Société Anonyme, Belgium, represented by Flip Petillion, Belgium.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Gabriella Garlo, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 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 October 8, 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 amended Complaint on October 11, 2021.
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 October 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 3, 2021.
The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 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 Solvay, a company leader in chemicals, that is known internationally and listed on the European Stock Exchange. The Complainant was founded in 1863 and headquartered in Belgium. The Complainant has around 24,100 employees in 64 countries.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations in many countries including inter alia the following trademarks:
- European Union trademark registration SOLVAY No. 000067801, filed on April 1, 1996, and registered on May 30, 2000;
- European Union trademark registration SOLVAY No. 011664091, filed on March 18, 2013, and registered on August 13, 2013;
- International trademark registration SOLVAY No. 1171614, registered on February 28, 2013.
The disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(i) The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks. The mere addition of a generic Top-Level domain name (“gTLD”) “.one” should be disregarded and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
(ii) The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark SOLVAY. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark cannot constitute bona fide or even fair use. Finally, the disputed domain name appears to trigger multiple redirections to various websites.
(iii) Due to the strong reputation and well-known character of the trademark SOLVAY, the Complainant considers that the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered.
The Complainant also claims that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is made in bad faith, as the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive and widely known trademarks.
In addition, the disputed domain name appears to trigger multiple redirections to various third-party websites, which amounts to use in bad faith. Finally, for the Complainant, the use of a privacy service and the fact that the Respondent changed its contact details after being contacted by the Complainant are additional inferences of bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn the absence of a formal Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the trademark SOLVAY.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks SOLVAY, which, as long established by previous UDRP panels, may be sufficient to determine that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, ignoring the generic Top-Level domain name (“gTLD”) “.one”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe burden of proof is on the Complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, the burden of production then shifts to the Respondent, which has then to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
On the basis of the submitted evidence, the Panel considers that the Complainant has successfully established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: The Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name, nor owns any registered rights on the disputed domain name or has been authorized by the Complainant to use the prior trademarks in any way.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint, not providing any explanation or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that if the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Respondent would have probably submitted a response to the Complaint.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name triggers multiple redirections to various third party websites, some of which compete with or capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark, which cannot be considered fair, especially when considering the construction of the disputed domain name that carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant that does not exist (see sections 2.5.1 and 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
Noting the above, and in the absence of any Response or allegations from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithWith regards to the registration of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that at the time of the registration, the Respondent knew or should have been aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and activities. Indeed, given the fact that the Complainant’s trademarks are well known worldwide and distinctive, the Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the existence of the previous trademarks.
This finding is emphasized by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates identically the Complainant’s trademark SOLVAY and hence strengthens the impression that the disputed domain name is in some way connected to the Complainant or the Complainant’s services.
Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent.
As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the disputed domain name triggers multiple redirections to various third-party websites. In the Panel’s view the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy have been made out, namely that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
In addition, the Panel notes that when it registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which constitutes an additional factor indicating bad faith (see section 3.6, WIPO Overview 3.0). Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent “Gabriella Garlo” has been cited as respondent in more than 20 UDRP proceedings, all of which have found the Respondent to have acted in bad faith when registering the respective domain name. See, e.g., Vizio, Inc. v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gabriella Garlo,WIPO Case No. D2021-2469; Rheem Manufacturing Company v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo,WIPO Case No. D2020-2115.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
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
Elise Dufour
Sole Panelist
Date: November 29, 2021