ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société Coopérative Agricole Limagrain v. Yiwei Ren, Yiwei Case No. D2025-4132 1. The Parties The Complainant is Société Coopérative Agricole Limagrain, France, represented by Ebrand France, France. The Respondent is Yiwei Ren, Yiwei, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2025. On October 9, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 October 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2025. The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 2025. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, founded in 1965, is an international agricultural cooperative group specializing in field seeds, vegetable seeds, and cereal products. Through its holding Vilmorin & Cie, it ranks as the world’s 3rd largest seed company and is also one of the leading European baker and pastry makers via Jacquet-Brossard. Operating under the LIMAGRAIN Group, it employs about 9,700 people, includes 1,700 farmer members, and achieved a turnover of EUR 2.5 billion in 2024. The Complainant is present in 53 countries, with products distributed in 150 markets worldwide, including China. In 2015, the Complainant partnered with Gansu Hengji Seed Co., Ltd to establish Hengji Limagrain Seed Co. in Zhangye City, Gansu Province, China. The joint venture focuses on research and development, production, processing, and sales of corn seeds, marketed in China under the LG brand. Another joint venture of the Complainant in China is Shanxi Limagrain Special Grain Research and Development Co. The Complainant owns multiple registrations for the LIMAGRAIN trademark, including the following international trademark registrations also covering China: - International Trademark Registration No. 808393 for LIMAGRAIN, registered on April 23, 2003, for goods and services in International Classes 1, 30, 31, and 44; and - International Trademark Registration No. 815310 for LIMAGRAIN FROM EARTH TO LIFE (device), registered on April 23, 2003, for goods and services in International Classes 1, 30, 31, and 44. The Complainant also holds a significant portfolio of domain names incorporating the LIMAGRAIN trademark, such as (registered on January 9, 1997), (registered on December 15, 2023), and (created on November 14, 2023). The primary domain name resolves to its official website. The disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2025 and redirects to a Registrar’s page offering the domain name for sale at USD 1,450. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant asserts rights in the LIMAGRAIN trademark, supported by respective international registrations in multiple jurisdictions. It alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to the LIMAGRAIN trademark. No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not granted any authorization for the Respondent to make use of its LIMAGRAIN trademark, in a domain name or otherwise. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale via Registrar’s landing page, listed at a “Buy-It-Now” price of USD 1,450.
page 3 The Complainant contends that, due to the disputed domain name's composition and timing of registration, the Respondent’s use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the UDRP. The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence of the Respondent having made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s parking of the disputed domain name and listing it for sale supports the inference that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names opportunistically, with knowledge of the Complainant’s LIMAGRAIN trademark, primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant, and preventing the Complainant from registration of the domain name in the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site”. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has been involved in six prior UDRP proceedings, each resulting in the transfer of the disputed domain names. This consistent pattern of adverse decisions serves as additional evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith conduct. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[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.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: i. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; ii. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii. that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its decision on the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
page 4 The entirety of the LIMAGRAIN mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel disregards the gTLD “.site” featured in the disputed domain name under the first element as it is the standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in a domain name by demonstrating, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following: i. before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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. you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or iii. you are 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s listing of the disputed domain name for sale on the Registrar’s website does not establish any legitimate claim of being commonly known by that domain name, nor does it create any independent reputation in the domain name apart from the Complainant’s trademark rights. While holding for resale domain names consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the Policy, considering the long-standing use of the Complainant’s mark, including in China, where the Respondent is reportedly located, and the lack of any substantive Response putting forward a legitimate non-infringing purpose, in the Panel’s view, it is reasonable to infer that by offering the disputed domain name for sale the Respondent has intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the Complainant’s trademark
page 5 Respectively, the Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2; - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. See paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3; - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. See paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4; and - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In addition to the specific circumstances outlined in UDRP paragraph 4(b), particular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name, (ii) the chosen TLD (e.g., particularly where corresponding to the complainant’s area of business activity or natural zone of expansion), (iii) the content of any website to which the domain name directs, including any changes in such content and the timing thereof, (iv) the timing and circumstances of the registration, (v) any respondent pattern of targeting marks along a range of factors, such as a common area of commerce, intended consumers, or geographic location, (vi) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name, or (vii) other indicia generally suggesting that the respondent had somehow targeted the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided ample evidence showing that the registration and use of its LIMAGRAIN trademarks long predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is well established and widely recognized, with its LIMAGRAIN trademarks and related products enjoying significant reputation. Furthermore, the Complainant operates joint ventures in China, where the Respondent is located. Therefore, the Respondent was likely aware that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration. The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration indicates bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Moreover, the Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale at USD 1,450, being a price likely exceeding out-of-pocket costs, as discussed above, reflecting its value derived from the LIMAGRAIN trademark. Such conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
page 6 Finally, the Panel notes the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. The Panel also finds that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to trademarks held by third parties. The Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent has been the subject of multiple UDRP proceedings initiated by different trademark owners, all of which resulted in decisions against the Respondent. This conduct demonstrates a clear pattern of abusive domain name registrations and supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Kateryna Oliinyk/ Kateryna Oliinyk Sole Panelist Date: November 27, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy