{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104719", "time_of_filling": "2022-07-25 10:38:59", "domain_names": [ "LyondellChemieNederlands.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V." ], "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)", "respondent": [ "Massimo Selle" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAs regards the first element of the Policy, the Complainant states it is evident that the LYONDELLBASELL trademarks and (in particular) the LYONDELL trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain name and, thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nWith respect to the LYONDELL trademark, the disputed domain name is undoubtedly confusingly similar to such mark, since it incorporates the entirety of the dominant and distinctive part of the trademark (i.e. the wording LYONDELL). \r\n\r\nIn addition, comparing the disputed domain name and the LYONDELL trademarks to the domain name the only difference is the addition of the generic, non-distinctive and descriptive word “chemie” and the geographical indication “nederlands”. According to the Complainant, such addition neither affects the attractive power of such trademark, nor is sufficient to prevent the finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and such mark, but even enhances the likelihood of confusion. \r\n\r\nWith respect to the LYONDELLBASELL trademark, the Respondent has eliminated the part “BASELL” of the trademark and added as mentioned before the generic, non-distinctive and descriptive word “chemie” and the geographical indication “nederlands”. The disputed domain name is also almost identical to the corporate name of Lyondell Chemie Nederland from which it differs only for the addition of an “s” as the last letter.\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nAs regards the second element of the Policy, the Complainant denies that the Respondent has been authorized to use the Complainant's trademarks in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainant (or of the other related affiliated companies), expressed or implied, to use its (their) trademarks or any other mark identical or confusingly similar to such marks, nor to register any domain name identical or confusingly similar to such marks.\r\n\r\nIn addition, there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant claims, that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to further a phishing scheme.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs regards the third element of the Policy, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and uses it in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known prior trademarks. Given the distinctiveness and reputation of LyondellBasell’s business and trademarks worldwide, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of LyondellBasell and its rights in such marks. Thus, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants and their marks (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is registered in name of Massimo Selle: it is clearly a false information as Massimo Selle is the key account manager of sales department of LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS B.V. and it is not involved in the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name .", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "A preliminary procedural question has been raised with respect to certain of the trademark rights asserted and the named Complainant in this action. The named Complainant is LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V. and this entity is the listed owner of the asserted registrations for the LYONDELLBASELL trademark. The Complaint also asserts rights in the trademark LYONDELL and submits evidence of registrations owned by an entity named Lyondell Chemical Company which is not listed as a Complainant in the present case. \r\n\r\nIn asserting the LYONDELL trademark registrations, the Complaint claims that \"LyondellBasell Industries N.V., LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V., Lyondell Chemie Nederland B.V. and Lyondell Chemical Company are related companies belonging to the same group and having right in the relevant marks on which this Complaint is based\". The Complainant further claims that\r\n“According to the UDRP jurisprudence any one party of multiple related parties, on behalf of the other interested parties, may bring a Complaint and is to be considered to have standing in dispute (see paragraph 1.4.2 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and the decisions mentioned thereto).” Paragraph 1.4.2 of the cited WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “Where multiple related parties have rights in the relevant mark on which a UDRP complaint is based, a UDRP complaint may be brought by any one party, on behalf of the other interested parties.”\r\n\r\nThe Complaint goes on to state that “LyondellBasell Group is formed of various affiliated companies, all of them under the ultimate control of LyondellBasell Industries N.V., headquartered in The Netherlands.” Although it does not specifically claim that LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V. and Lyondell Chemical Company are two of these “affiliated companies” under the umbrella of LyondellBasell Group, it notes that “[t]he Complainant of this administrative proceeding is LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V., filer of this Complaint also on behalf of the other interested parties (Lyondell Chemie Nederland B.V., LyondellBasell Industries N.V. and Lyondell Chemical Company”. \r\n\r\nSubmitted into evidence are copies of a corporate brochure and a 2020 Annual Report and these mention the existence of many companies related to LyondellBasell Industries N.V. Although a more specific claim and evidence would have been preferred, under the circumstances of the present case, and in the absence of any objection by the Respondent, the Panel is prepared to accept that LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V. and Lyondell Chemical Company are affiliated companies and that assertion of the LYONDELL trademark registrations is appropriate.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP are met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "LyondellBasell Group (the Complainant) is a multinational chemical company with European and American roots which has become the third largest plastics, chemicals and refining company and the largest licensor of polyethylene and polypropylene technologies in the world. The Complainant has over 13,000 employees around the globe and manufactures at 55 sites in 17 countries. Its products are sold in approximately 100 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims ownership of fifty registrations of the LYONDELLBASELL trademark, amongst these are the following:\r\n\r\n- US Trademark Registration No. 3634012 for LYONDELLBASELL, registered on June 9, 2009;\r\n- US Trademark Registration No. 5096173 for LYONDELLBASELL, registered on December 6, 2016;\r\n- European Union Trademark Registration No. 006943518 for LYONDELLBASELL, registered on January 21, 2009; and\r\n- European Union Trademark Registration No. 013804091 for LYONDELLBASEL, registered on July 2, 2015.\r\n\r\nMany additional trademark registrations for the LYONDELL mark, which are owned by Lyondell Chemical Company, are also asserted including European Union Trademark Registration No. 001001866 for LYONDEL dated May 22, 2000.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns multiple domain names consisting of the wordings “LYONDELLBASELL” and “LYONDELL”, such as used as the main website of LyondellBasell since October 23, 2007 and registered on February 21, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on April 11, 2022.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "LYONDELLCHEMIENEDERLANDS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }