The Complainant and its affiliates of the LyondellBasell group of companies (together “LyondellBasell”) are a multinational chemical company with European and American roots going back to 1953\/54. Since then, LyondellBasell has become the third largest plastics, chemicals and refining company and the largest licensor of polyethylene and polypropylene technologies in the world. LyondellBasell has over 13,000 employees around the globe and manufactures at 55 sites in 17 countries. Its products are sold into approximately 100 countries. According to its 2020 annual report, LyondellBasell generated $4.9 billion in income and $7.1 billion as EBITDA in that year. LyondellBasell is listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2010.<\/p>\n
The three disputed domain names are not used for active websites, but they are all set up with active MX records, indicating that they are used to send and receive e-mails.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondents are not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondents. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondents to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “LYONDELLBASELL”, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>", "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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has requested to consolidate the disputes regarding the three domain names <lynodellbasell.com>, <lyondellbaesll.com>, and <lyondellbaseli.com> in a single UDRP proceeding despite the different names and contact details of the respective Respondent. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.” Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules grants the Panel authority to “decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.” The Panel, having regard to all relevant circumstances, concludes that the consolidation of the three domain name disputes asserted by the Complainant against the Respondents is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and is in line with prior relevant UDRP decisions in this area (cf. Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No. D2010-0281; Archipelago Holdings LLC. v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d\/b\/a\/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales, WIPO Case No. D2001-0729; Yahoo! Inc. v. Mahesh Rohatgi \/ Prakhar Rastogi, Bestwebexperts.com \/ Prakhar Rastogi, Best Web Experts \/ Privacy Protection Service INC d\/b\/a PrivacyProtect.org \/ Prashant Mishra, Vipra Busines Solution \/ Rina Rohatgi \/ Wemo Tech Support \/ Charu Rohatgi \/ Alina Jain \/ Raju Hirani, Alfa Infosystem \/ Brijesh Pandey, IBS Infosystem \/ Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Amit Singh \/ Satya Prakash \/ Rajveer Singh Chawla \/ Pooja Pandey, Innovative Business Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2015-2323). The Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions that (i) the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation is fair and equitable to all Parties. Although the three disputed domain names are formally registered in the name of three different subjects, several elements demonstrate a common control: Despite being registered with three different Registrars, the three domain names use the same DNS servers (Monovm.earth.orderbox-dns.com, as per WHOIS provided), all three are used in the same way (i.e., not used for an active website, but connected with MX records, with <lyondellbaesll.com> and <lyondellbaseli.com> even having the same MX records (mx1.titan.email, IP address 3.82.33.170). Finally, all three domain names have the same naming patterns as all three are clear typosquatting versions of <lyondellbasell.com> (as discussed in more detail below). The Panel therefore considers it procedurally fair and efficient to treat the Respondents as a single domain name holder because the prima facie evidence presented by the Complainant indicates that the three Respondents are involved in a common enterprise. The Complainant’s contentions and prima facie evidence were not challenged by any of the Respondents.<\/p>\n
Given the need to consider the requested consolidation of the Complaint against three different Respondents with different names and addresses (but alleged common control), the Panel issued a procedural order on September 18, 2024, that it was appropriate for the Complainant to pay the Additional UDRP Fee of 300 Euro, having regard to the complexity of the proceeding. In accordance with this procedural order the Complainant paid the Additional UDRP Fees within 5 days of notification by the Provider.<\/p>\n
The Complaint was filed on August 26, 2024. On that same day, the Registrar of <lynodellbasell.com> stated in its Registrar Verification to the Provider that <lynodellbasell.com> had already been deleted by its customer on August 24, 2024, i.e., this disputed domain name already had the EPP status code “redemptionPeriod” when the Complaint was filed. Paragraph 3.7.5.7 of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (“RAA”) states that where “a domain which is the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted or expires during the course of the dispute, the complainant in the UDRP dispute will have the option to renew or restore the name under the same commercial terms as the registrant.” It seems, however, that neither the Complainant nor the Respondent have used the “redemptionPeriod” to recover, renew or restore the domain name <lynodellbasell.com> pursuant to Paragraph 3.7.5.7 RAA. As of the date of this Panel decision the disputed domain name <lynodellbasell.com> is still registered but meanwhile has the EPP status code “pendingDelete”. This means that the domain <lynodellbasell.com> can be purged and dropped from the registry database at any time, in which case the Registrar will no longer be able to implement this Panel decision regarding <lynodellbasell.com>. Should the domain <lynodellbasell.com> be purged and dropped from the registry database before this Panel decision is implemented, all Parties will have to accept such outcome of these proceedings because neither of them has renewed <lynodellbasell.com> pursuant to Paragraph 3.7.5.7 RAA.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dr. Thomas Schafft" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the designation “LYONDELLBASELL”, including:<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s affiliate LyondellBasell Industries N.V. owns, inter alia<\/em>, the domain name <lyondellbasell.com>, which is used as main website of the LyondellBasell group of companies since October 23, 2007.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:<\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark registrations cited above therefore predate the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"lyondellbaseli.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"lynodellbasell.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"lyondellbaesll.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n