The Complainant is a multinational chemical company with European and American roots.
The Complainant states that it is the third largest plastics, chemicals and refining company and the largest licensor of polyethylene and polypropylene technologies in the world. The Complainant points out that it operates in more than 100 countries.
The Complainant underlines that it owns numerous domain names consisting in, inter alia, the trademark “LYONDELLBASELL”, such as <lyondellbasell.com> used as main website since October 23, 2007. The Complainant adds that it is also present on the main social media.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Complainant may have provided false information in the Whois as regards the disputed domain name, because it refers to a company type that does not exist in Switzerland, and the Swiss postal address provided does not exist. <\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “LYONDELLBASELL” because the latter is recognizable within the disputed domain name, notwithstanding the addition of the geographical term “USA”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that: <\/p>\n
- it has no relationship with the Respondent whatsoever;
- the Respondent has never received any approval from the Complainant to use its trademarks, nor to register any domain name identical or confusingly similar to them;
- there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name;
- the disputed domain name is set up with active MX records for sending and receiving emails, indicating a possible involvement in phishing activities.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known prior trademark and that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of its business and trademarks worldwide, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant.
The Complainant considers that the fact that the disputed domain name is set up with active MX records for sending and receiving emails, probably for phishing purposes, is evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant argues that the information provided in the Whois, that are prima facie false, constitutes additional evidence of bad faith.
<\/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, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/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 Complainant underlines that this Complaint is filed also on behalf of other companies belonging to the same group.<\/p>\n
Other panels have considered, in similar cases (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2014-1433), that a company of a certain group may, either under a theory of implied license, or a more general notion based on corporate control and common sense, have standing to file a UDRP complaint. The Panel, taking into account the circumstances of the present case, as well as other cases involving the same companies (see, for example, CAC-UDRP-104719), considers that in the present case it is appropriate to take the same approach.<\/p>\n
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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"LYONDELLBASELL\", including the European Union trademark No. 006943518, “LYONDELLBASELL” registered on January 21, 2009 for goods and services in classes 1, 4, 17, 42 and 45.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on August 5, 2026.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "lyondellbasellusa.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }