Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v Jody Robert Camps

WIPO Case No. D2022-1433

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Jody Robert Camps

Case No. D2022-1433

1. The Parties

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

by Innis Law Group LLC, United States.

Respondent is Jody Robert Camps, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <addnm.com> is registered with IONOS SE (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2022.

On April 21, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 29, 2022 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 4, 2022.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 6, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified

the Parties of Respondent’s default on May 29, 2022.

The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2022. The Panel

finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a multinational food processing company known internationally by the acronym ADM. It is the proprietor of numerous registrations for its ADM mark, including the following:

- United States Trademark No. 1386430 for ADM (word mark), registered on March 18, 1986 for goods
in classes 1, 4, 12, 16, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 39;

- United States Trademark No. 3344263 for E-ADM (word mark), registered on November 27, 2007 for
services in class 35 and 36;

- European Union Trademark No. 00913194 for ADM (word mark), registered on February 15, 2001 for
goods and services in classes 1, 4, 5, 29, 30, 31, 33 and 39.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 15, 2022. It does not resolve to an active website. The

record contains copies of emails to Complainant’s customers sent using the disputed domain name

requesting payment of an invoice appended thereto. The invoice reproduces the Complainant’s company

name, and logo.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows:

Under the first element, Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ADM

mark, since it completely incorporates the well-known ADM mark, with the addition of the letters “d” and “n”.

Under the second element, Complainant states that Respondent has never been known by the disputed
domain name, nor has Respondent ever been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its marks.
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails to redirect funds intended for
Complainant to itself.

Under the third element, Complainant states that the ADM mark is well-known internationally and the registration of the disputed domain name intended to mislead Internet users. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate an ADM employee for fraudulent purposes. Respondent has

improperly obtained information about Complainant’s customers and has initiated correspondence to attempt

to divert customer payments to itself.

Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and

page 3

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

(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and

documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that

it deems applicable”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the ADM marks through registrations in several jurisdictions. Complainant thereby satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.

In comparing Complainant’s ADM mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed

domain name is confusingly similar to this mark as the trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain

name. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADM

mark as it consists of a misspelling of that mark. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that, in such

cases, a domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first

element because Complainant’s mark is sufficiently recognizable within the disputed domain name. See

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. In addition, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name for
an email address seeking to impersonate the Complainant supports a finding of confusing similarity. See

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, is

viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the first element

confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the evidence submitted by Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized by
Complainant and has no rights in the ADM mark. Considering the evidence presented that Respondent has

engaged in efforts to target Complainant’s clients by impersonating Complainant’s employee, it is clear that the disputed domain name reflects a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s ADM mark. Such use cannot

confer rights or legitimate interests.

Pursuant to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, and cases thereunder, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent has not provided any rebuttal of Complainant’s prima facie case and has therefore not proved

rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is

commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that there are any circumstances or activities that would

establish Respondent’s rights therein. Complainant has brought forward evidence that Respondent has

engaged in a fraudulent scheme using the disputed domain name. Respondent has not refuted this
evidence. The Panel finds that the circumstances indicate illegal activity, which would preclude a finding of
rights or legitimate interests on the part of Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

page 4

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed

domain name. Complainant provides uncontroverted evidence that its rights in the ADM mark predate the registration of the disputed domain by decades. The disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling of

Complainant’s well-known ADM mark. Under such circumstances, UDRP panels have consistently found

that the registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by presumption. The fact that the disputed domain name has been used shortly after its registration to

an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith on the part of Respondent. See
impersonate Complainant’s employee leads the Panel to consider that Respondent registered the disputed

domain name with Complainant’s ADM mark to unfairly take advantage of its confusing similarity.

The Panel also finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain

name. The evidence provided by Complainant clearly indicates that Respondent was perpetuating a

fraudulent scheme by using the disputed domain name to generate emails in which Respondent

impersonated Complainant’s employee and sought to invoice Complainant’s customers. Consistent with

UDRP panel practice, such conduct clearly demonstrates bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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 <addnm.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/

Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa

Sole Panelist
Date: June 16, 2022