{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108778", "time_of_filling": "2026-06-26 09:45:14", "domain_names": [ "arkemabenefits.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARKEMA FRANCE" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr Franck CASO (IN CONCRETO)", "respondent": [ "Shi Lei" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant indicates that it is a French-based company present in 55 countries all around the world in 2025. The Complainant clarifies that it has 154 production plants and over 20,700 employees.<\/p>\n

The Complainant points out that it is a world leader as regards production and distribution of paints, adhesives, coatings, glue, fibre, resins, raw materials and finished materials for both general industry and consumer goods. The Complainant underlines that it is also a leader in the research and development of the above-mentioned products and materials.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that it has achieved a strong reputation and significant recognition in the chemical industry. <\/p>\n

The Complainant observes that the United States of America is its third largest national market, where it has more than 3,500 employees and 51 sites, including 40 manufacturing facilities, business centers, research and development activities and logistics centers. <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 19 May 2026.<\/span><\/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 Complainant contends that:<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “benefits” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARKEMA. <\/p>\n

The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ARKEMA trademark.<\/p>\n

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor does it have any business dealings with, the Respondent.The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was redirecting to a fraudulent website reproducing the Complainant's website, and that this is a typical case of impersonation and undeniable evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent could not be unaware of the existence of the ARKEMA trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, not only because ARKEMA is a well-known trademark, but also in consideration of the nature of the domain name. <\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

 NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

It ought to be indicated that the Centre was not able to send the written notice to the Respondent at the address provided by the registrar in the registrar verification does not exist. The postal service provider would not be able to deliver a written notice to such an address. No further postal address could be found.<\/p>\n

 The notice of the Commencement of the administrative proceeding was therefore only sent by e-mail. Yet, the e-mail notice was sent to <postmaster@arkemabenefits.com> and <fourstone@126.com> but the Czech Arbitration Court never received any proof of delivery or notification of undelivery. No further e-mail addresses could be found on the disputed sites.<\/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": [ "David-Irving Tayer" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the owner of the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n