The Complainant SOLVAY SA, which was founded in 1863, is a science company, operates in chemicals and materials such as high-performance polymers and composite technologies, providing solutions and applications in many sectors such as agriculture, personal care, healthcare, consumer food, automotive, aerospace or electronics. The Complainant is headquartered in Brussels and owns offices and production sites in more than 60 countries, employing about 22.000 people. In 2022, the Complainant’s net sales reached 13.4 billion Euros.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds many trademark registrations including “SOLVAY” phrase going back to at least 2000 and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing “SOLVAY”, such as <solvay.com> registered in March 21, 1995 and others such as <solvay.be> or <solvay.us>.<\/p>\n
On July 25, 2025; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <solvay.global>. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/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": "
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “SOLVAY”, as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it is argued that the top-level domain “global” increases the risk of confusion for internet users, since it may suggest that the domain name refers to the Complainant’s worldwide operations or official global website. In any case, it is a standard registration requirement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks “SOLVAY”.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain names as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark or domain name with “SOLVAY”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also claims that its trademark is well-known and the awareness of the trademark among the public is considerable.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its well-known trademark SOLVAY and it is a fanciful and invented sign of which the distinctive character has been enhanced significantly throughout the years as a result of the extensive use and promotion of the trademark in relation to the Complainant’s world-renowned global activities in advanced materials, specialty chemicals, and sustainable technologies, including recycling solutions. Thus, it is stated that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The case of WIPO Case No. D2023-0235, Solvay SA v. Name Redacted was given as a reference (“the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” The Complainant’s SOLVAY mark has acquired considerable goodwill and renown worldwide. The Respondent is, therefore, presumed to have registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith”.”).<\/p>\n Also, the case of WIPO Case No. D2023-4681 Solvay SA v. Ximin Dong, Hong Kong Qineasy Technology Limited was given as a reference (“Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.”) to support the claim of bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the absence of active use as well as the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of SOLVAY are elements that would not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding given the overall circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n Finally, it was claimed that the disputed domain name has active MX records, which entails that the Respondent can send emails through the email address @solvay.global. The Respondent can therefore use (or may already have used) the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails such as messages containing spam, phishing attempts, etc.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the SOLVAY trademark being identical to the disputed domain name gives the impression that <solvay.global> or the related email address (@solvay.global) is controlled by the Complainant or are at least associated with it. That confusion may result in reputational harm for the Complainant and serious financial consequences for the Internet users.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/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": "2025-11-18 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the word “SOLVAY” in several countries, such as the international trademark “SOLVAY” n°1171614, registered since February 28, 2013 and the European Union trademark “SOLVAY” n°000067801 registered since May 30, 2000.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"solvay.global": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}