FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Founded in 1865, the Complainant is a German company organized into 11 divisions, which are grouped into six segments, namely, Chemicals, Materials, Industrial Solutions, Surface Technologies, Nutrition & Care, and Agricultural Solutions. The Complainant has subsidiaries and joint ventures in more than 80 countries and operates six integrated production sites and 390 other production sites in Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas and Africa. The Complainant has customers in more than 190 countries. Its products are sold online and via selected department stores worldwide. The Complainant is particularly known for its role in the development of magnetic recording tape, used for multiple audio, video and data applications.<\/p>\n
In addition to its portfolio of BASF trademarks, the Complainant and its subsidiaries maintain a portfolio of corresponding registered domain names, the most relevant of which for present purposes are <basf.hk> (registered on November 13, 2006), and <basf-east-asia.com.hk> (registered on July 31, 1998).<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, it maintains a corporate presence in Hong Kong, where the Respondent is based. The Complainant’s Hong Kong subsidiary was incorporated on December 20, 1977 and remains active today under its Chinese name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names were each registered on January 21, 2025. The websites associated with the disputed domain names (since disabled by the host) were broadly similar in appearance, each referencing the Complainant’s BASF trademark and providing an invitation to register by e-mail or telephone (thus harvesting sensitive personal details of the user) along with advertisements for fraudulent investment schemes.<\/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": "
Complainant:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BASF trademark, which is contained in its entirety therein together with non-distinctive elements. The addition of the gTLD in each case is merely instrumental to Internet use and is not able to affect the confusing similarity between each of the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s said mark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not a licensee or authorized agent of the Complainant or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks, in which the Complainant has prior rights preceding the registration of the disputed domain names by decades. The Respondent is not an authorized reseller of the Complainant and has not been authorized to register and use the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names as an individual, business, or other organization, and the Respondent's last name is not the same as BASF or the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not provided the Complainant with any evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide <\/em>offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute. The disputed domain names have been used in an unlawful manner to attract bona fide <\/em>users by collecting sensitive data from them through impersonation of the Complainant. The Respondent’s conduct demonstrates that it did not intend to use the disputed domain names in connection with any legitimate purpose. The Respondent’s use cannot be considered legitimate or fair because it is attempting to deceive unaware Internet users by impersonating the Complainant and benefitting from the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark to trade on the Complainant’s fame for commercial gain. At a minimum, the Respondent intended the disputed domain names to suggest a relationship, endorsement, or affiliation with the Complainant that the Respondent does not have. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that it has targeted the Complainant.<\/p>\n Given the use within the disputed domain names and on the corresponding websites of the Complainant’s intensively deployed, and globally reputed trademark, which long predates the disputed domain names, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the existence of said mark. The use of such a well-known trademark in a domain name creates a presumption of bad faith on its own under the Policy. The Respondent’s sole purpose in registering the disputed domain names was to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s said mark by confusing Internet users seeking products under said mark and leading them to websites that are not linked to the Complainant’s official website by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of said websites. The fact that the host of the disputed domain names decided to suspend them upon receipt of the Complainant’s notice of infringement is an additional circumstance demonstrating 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 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>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-16 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of various BASF trademarks, such as:<\/p>\n Hong Kong Registered Trademark Number 300751851 in respect of the mark BASF, registered since November 11, 2006 in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, and 44.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bbasfmall.vip": "TRANSFERRED",
"fbasfmall.vip": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}