ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Solvay Société Anonyme v. Anonymous Domain Registration Service Case No. D2023-0656 1. The Parties Complainant is Solvay Société Anonyme, Belgium, represented by Petillion, Belgium. Respondent is Anonymous Domain Registration Service, Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Realtime Register B.V. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 13, 2023. On February 14, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 15, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 15, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 21, 2023. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 23, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2023. On February 27, 2023, the Center received communications from a third party. Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on March 16, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 2023. 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 science company, specialised in high-performance polymers and composites technologies, and a leader in chemicals. Complainant owns trademark registrations for SOLVAY including: - the European Union Trade Mark registration No. 000067801 SOLVAY, filed on April 1, 1996, and registered on May 30, 2000, for goods in international classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 31; - International trademark registration No. 1171614 SOLVAY, registered on February 28, 2013, for goods and services in international classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 42. Complainant owns also the domain name registration since 1995, under which Complainant maintains its main website. Per Complaint, the SOLVAY mark is used extensively, including on social media, and has been recently ranked for several years in the top 10 most powerful and valuable Belgian brands. Complainant is also active in the Middle East under its trademark. The Domain Name was registered on September 9, 2022, and leads to an inactive website, while, as Complainant demonstrated, email servers have been configured. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for the transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit any formal response. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the SOLVAY trademark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SOLVAY trademark. The Domain Name incorporates Complainant's SOLVAY mark in its entirety, with the addition of the letters "jo", which could refer to the abbreviation for the country, Jordan. This does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the SOLVAY mark remains recognizable within the Domain Name (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), sections 1.7 and 1.8). The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SOLVAY mark. Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent's 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) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is 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 mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not replied to Complainant's contentions and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per the Complaint, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. Furthermore, as Complainant has demonstrated, an email server has been configured on the Domain Name. This indicates the intention of Respondent to potentially use the Domain Name for purposes other than hosting a website, including potentially for constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name, to be used for deceiving purposes (Accor SA v. Domain Admin, C/O ID#10760, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Yogesh Bhardwaj, WIPO Case No. D2017-1225). The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. page 4 Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, "in particular but without limitation", are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant's SOLVAY mark had been widely used and registered before the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent and enjoys reputation, as repeatedly recognized (SOLVAY Société Anonyme v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gary Reid, WIPO Case No. D2022-2586, SOLVAY Société Anonyme v. Not disclosed Not disclosed, MRSOFT Consults, WIPO Case No. D2021-4278). Therefore, noting also the composition of the Domain Name, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754). Respondent knew or should have known about Complainant's rights, noting also that such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search (Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462). As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name leads to an inactive website and there is a risk that it be used for purposes other than to host a website. This is supported by the fact that, as per Complainant, an email server has been configured on the Domain Name. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). Furthermore, use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may also constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending deceptive emails, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). page 5 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, , be transferred to Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy