Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v ifeco aladin, Wilmar Europe Trading

WIPO Case No. D2024-1697

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. ifeco aladin, Wilmar Europe Trading

Case No. D2024-1697

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, United States of America (“US”), represented by Innis

Law Group LLC, US.

The Respondent is ifeco aladin, Wilmar Europe Trading, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <adm-nl.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2024.

On April 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same day, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 30, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was May 21, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2024. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as “ADM”, is an American

multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation. It was founded in 1902 and it is

headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, US.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:

- US Registration no.1386430 for ADM, in classes 1, 4,12, 16, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 39, registered on
March 18, 1986.

- US Registration no. 2766613 for ADM, in classes 16, 35, 36, and 42, registered on
September 23, 2003.

- Canadian Registration no. TMA820225 for ADM, in class 1, registered on March 20, 2012.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <adm.com>, registered on October 12, 1994.

The Respondent is ifeco aladin, Wilmar Europe Trading, reportedly located in Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

The disputed domain name <adm-nl.com> was registered on April 9, 2024, and resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <adm-nl.com> is identical to the trademark ADM.

The disputed domain was associated with an email address impersonating ADM’s staff members and engaged in a scheme to attempt to misappropriate a large sum of money from ADM’s business

representatives.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is used to take unfair advantage of the

Complainant’s rights for commercial gain, since Internet users and the Complainant’s clients would inevitably

associate the content related to the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s prior trademarks .

Moreover, the Complainant stresses that the Respondent is not commonly known by “ADM.”

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademarks ADM and has not authorized the
registration and use of the disputed domain name, nor the use of its trade name and trademarks by the
Respondent.

page 3

The Respondent is not affiliated to or authorized by the Complainant to use or register the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for ADM trademarks predate the registration of the disputed

domain name.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights and has clearly

registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s trademark, and that the registration of the

disputed domain name was conducted in bad faith.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”),

section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of the letters “nl” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel

finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed

domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that the Respondent created an email using the disputed domain name to try to impersonate the Complainant, aiming at obtaining undue advantage.

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests

in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and

has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

page 4

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed as impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s ADM trademarks as the Complainant’s trademark registrations as well as the Complainant’s own domain name

predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the Respondent tried to

impersonate the Complainant’s staff and tried to scam customers by using the disputed domain name,

causing harm to the reputation of the Complainant.

The Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith

under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <adm-nl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/

Mario Soerensen Garcia

Sole Panelist
Date: June 17, 2024