BOSTIK SA is a French company in business activity for over 100 years, using the trademark BOSTIK to designate its products since. It is one of the largest adhesive and sealant companies in the world, employing some 7,000 people in 55 countries across five continents. Therefore, BOSTIK is regarded as a well-known brand in the industry of adhesives and sealants. The Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name (24 July 2026).<\/p>\n
The Complainant, being part of the Arkema Group, is duly authorized to use the domain name owned by Arkema <bostik.com> created on 5 February 1996. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <bostlks.com> was registered on 24 july 2026, by the American resident Leo FINSK. This domain name is the typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark and exchanging the letter “L” with the letter “T” and the adding of the final \"S\" (plural) does not make any significant difference from the well-known, distinctive trademark BOSTIK.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <bosstlks.com> was registered on 24 July 2026 and is actively used in connection with a website impersonating the Complainant and offering its products. Moreover, the Complainant was informed of the existence of fraudulent e-mails.<\/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<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the BOSTIK brand is being used and products sold under this brand for over 100 years. It is one of the largest adhesive and sealant companies in the world, employing some 7,000 people in 55 countries across five continents. Therefore, BOSTIK is regarded as a famous brand in the industry of adhesives and sealants. The Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name (24 July 2026).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOSTIK trademark, as it almost identically reproduces; The only difference lays in replacing the letter \"i\" with the latter 't' (visually highly similar) and adding ta final \"s\" that is barely perceptible. These slight differences are not likely to alter the overall visual or phonetic impression. The Complainant concludes that the resemblance is not coincidental but rather fits a well-documented of typosquatting.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Furthermore, and in accordance with the well-established caselaw, the generic top-level domain \".com\", which should be disregarded, does not affect this comparison.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding bad faith, the Complainant argues that BOSTIK is a highly distinctive, coined term with no independent meaning, making it impossible that the Respondent selected this domain name by coincidence. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent's use of the domain name to operate sending of fraudulent e-mails using impersonation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed by Respondent. It ought to be indicated that the Centre sent of the complaint but nor the advice of delivery thereof was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court. The notice of the Commencement of the administrative proceeding was therefore only sent by e-mail. Yet, the e-mail notice sent to preferred252@web-library.net<\/a> was delivered. The notice sent to postmaster@bostlks.com<\/a> was returned back undelivered as the e-mail addresses had permanent fatal errors. <\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent never accessed the online platform.<\/span><\/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": "2026-09-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns several \"BOSTIK\" trademarks, registered worldwide, such as:<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant indicates that, being part of the ARKEMA Group, it is the duly authorized user of the domain name <bostik.com>, reserved since at least 5 February 1996 in the latter's name, and that the domain name has been duly exploited since.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bostlks.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n