Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v Shao Xu Feng Shao Xu Feng

WIPO Case No. D2023-3145

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Shao Xu Feng Shao Xu Feng

Case No. D2023-3145

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Shao Xu Feng Shao Xu Feng, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <admp2pea.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce

Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2023.
On July 21, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On July 22, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its
verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 July 24, 2023, 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 amended Complaint on July 26, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 4, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 24, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 25, 2023.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an American conglomerate founded in 1902. The Complainant originally specialized in food and ingredients, but now offers a diverse area of goods and services, including financial, investment, brokerage and business management services. The Complainant offers financial services through its subsidiary ADM Investor Services, Inc. which has been providing futures brokerage services for over 40 years. The Complainant promotes its operations through various means including from its website at “ which prominently features its company logo, being the letters ADM and a green leaf logo (the “ADM logo”).

The Complainant has held a trademark registration for a trademark consisting of the letters “ADM” (the “ADM registered on March 18, 1986, for variety of goods and services with a first use date of 1923.

The Domain Name was registered on February 27, 2023. The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that prominently reproduced the ADM Mark and logo. The Respondent’s Website invited users to enter their telephone number and set up a password. The Respondent’s Website purports to allow users to download an app to enable them to transfer money to the Respondent for the purposes of cryptocurrency trading. The Complainant has identified complaints from individuals who transferred their money to the Respondent and have subsequently been unable to withdraw their money.

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 Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

a)	It is the owner of the ADM Mark, having registered the ADM Mark in the United States. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ADM Mark as it reproduces the word mark ADM in its entirety and adds the term “p2pea”.
b)	There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the ADM Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the ADM Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name

for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Rather, the Domain Name is used for a website impersonating the Complainant as part of a broader fraudulent scheme to encourage users to transfer money to the Respondent which it does not return, which does not provide the Respondent

with rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name is being used for a website that impersonates the Complainant in an attempt to perpetuate fraud.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing
(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison
between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms, here “p2pea”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, conclusion is affirmed by the use to which the Domain Name has been put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15.

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

Based on the available record, 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.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

prima facie

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a case that the rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the
The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the

Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

page 4

The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the
Domain Name.

The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is in connection with a fraudulent scheme, namely for a website that reproduces the Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to offer a cryptocurrency investment service but according to the Complainant (and uncontradicted by the Respondent) in fact merely encourages users to deposit money with the Respondent which they cannot later withdraw. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing,

distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of

fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Based on the available record, 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.

e.g.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (, the sale of counterfeit goods or constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Domain Name has been used for a website impersonating the Complainant from which the Respondent purports to provide cryptocurrency investment services, but actually commits a fraud on users by encouraging them to deposit money with it, which is not returned.

illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking,
impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 Domain Name <admp2pea.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nicholas Smith/
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 14, 2023