{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107176", "time_of_filling": "2024-12-17 10:03:23", "domain_names": [ "arkemagroup-eu.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARKEMA FRANCE" ], "complainant_representative": "Franck Caso (IN CONCRETO)", "respondent": [ "Renji Kuruvilla (web Company)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, founded in 2006, is a world leader in materials science offering a wide range of products for various domains such as Paints, Adhesives, Coats, Glue, Fiber, Resins, Rought materials and Finished materials for both general industry and consumer goods. The Complainant operates in 55 countries around the world for a global amount of 151 production plants with more than 21.100 employees and approximately  9.5 billion EUR sales.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns <\/span>“ARKEMA”  numbered IR <\/span>847865 in <\/span>Armenia, Austria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Benelux, Belarus, Switzerland, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Algeria, Estonia, Egypt, Spain, Finland, United Kingdom, Georgia, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Iran, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Monaco, Norway, Singapore, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam and Turkey; “ARKEMA” numbered <\/span>004181731 <\/span> in the European Union; “ARKEMA”numbered <\/span>3082057 in the United States of America.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <arkemagroup-eu.com> is confusingly similar to its “ARKEMA“ trademarks covering many jurisdictions, as the Complainant’s trademark “ARKEMA“ trademark is reproduced identically within the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant submits that the addition of “Group” and “EU” terms in the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as they are not distinctive terms. The word “GROUP“ is a common term used by entities to designate an international group of companies, whereas the word “EU“ is the abbreviation for European Union and so qualifies a territory of interest, it also makes a direct reference to Complainant ARKEMA France, which is a company that originates from the European Union and operates in such territory through its numerous subsidiaries.<\/p>\n

 Moreover, the Complainant requests the disputed domain name suffix to be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see VAT Holding AG v. VAT.com, WIPO Case No. D2000 0607; Shangri La International Hotel Management Limited v. NetIncome Ventures Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006 1315).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <arkemagroup-eu.com> since the Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks or domain names, nor has it allowed the Respondent to reserve or use a domain name incorporating the Complainant's rights.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant submits that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for sending fake e-mails with the fraudulent e-mail address <sales@arkemagroup-eu.com> by impersonating the Complainant, and its subsidiaries.<\/p>\n

 In the past, the Respondent filed and used a domain name <arkema-bv.com>, sent fraudulent e-mails with <sales@arkema-bv.com> e-mail address, impersonated the Complainant and its Dutch subsidiary Arkema B.V Netherlands. The Respondent created the disputed domain name on December 5, 2024, the day the Complainant filed the UDRP action to the Czech Arbitration Court against the domain name <arkema-bv.com><\/p>\n

 The Complainant states that the Respondent is unlawfully using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant by sending fraudulent e-mails. This deceptive conduct aims at exploiting the Complainant’s reputation and illegitimately trade on its fame for potentially extorting money while misleading the public\/recipient into believing that it is the Complainant's subsidiary in the Netherlands (located in the European Union (EU) as in arkemagroup-eu.com) and even the Complainant’s employee. In this regard, the Complainant explains that the Respondent cannot possibly have acquired a right or have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the “ARKEMA” phrase is not a descriptive term, a commonly used expression or a word that would be instantly understood in the field of industry. Therefore, the phrase “ARKEMA” has a highly distinctive character (See Arkema France v. Zheng Chu He, WIPO Case No. D2016-2227; Arkema France v. Swapnil S Mashalkar, WIPO Case D2021-1479; ARKEMA FRANCE v. Kasz-Han, Richard Hajdu, WIPO Case No. D2021-0149). The Respondent, therefore, could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks, company names and domain names at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the reservation of a disputed domain name identical or highly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights while the Respondent has no right to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests in this respect and without authorization, demonstrates in itself that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant explains that thanks to the well-established status of the Complainant, the Respondent knew that the disputed domain name would be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior rights and thus registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant explains that the disputed domain name has been used to create messaging servers with various IP addresses and in addition to the creation of such messaging servers, an email address based on the disputed domain name has been created namely and used to address fraudulent emails to third parties which proves the Respondent’s bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the creation of the disputed domain name as well as the e-mail address <sales@arkemagroup-eu.com> is in a bad faith manner and is targeting random recipients by addressing fraudulent e-mails to probably obtain sensitive details from them or to extort money from them. Thus, it can therefore deeply impact the image of the Complainant if the victims are confused regarding the source of these emails.  It is also particularly prejudicing for the users of the Internet as they can easily be deceived when receiving the emails through a domain name reproducing the well-known trademark “ARKEMA“. Given the distinctiveness and renown of „ARKEMA“, the random recipient will easily consider that the fraudulent e-mails originate from the Complainant and as a consequence, deliver the required information.<\/p>\n

The Complainant explains that the Respondent reserved and used the disputed domain name for phishing\/fraud and impersonation purposes.<\/p>\n

Based on these grounds, the Complainant concludes the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "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).<\/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 name (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 name has been registered and is 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “ARKEMA”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n