Bunge SA v ee e

WIPO Case No. D2025-0346

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bunge SA v. ee e

Case No. D2025-0346

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bunge SA, Switzerland, represented by 101domain.com, United States of America

(“United States”).

The Respondent is ee e, Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bungegen.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2025.
On January 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2025, 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 (Registration Private, Domains by Proxy LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 31,
2025, 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

February 3, 2025.

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 February 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2025. 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 is an international agriculture and food processing company. The Complainant was
founded in 1818. The Complainant operates approximately 300 facilities in more than 40 countries with over

23,000 employees and became a public corporation in 2001.

The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations including United States Registration No.
2036787 for BUNGE that was applied for on November 30, 1995 and registered on February 11, 1997.

The Complainant’s main website is located at “ and the Complainant also owns other domain names such as <bungena.com> and <bungeinvestment.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2024.

The Respondent did not file a Response, so little information is known about the Respondent. According to the Registrar’s records, the Respondent has an address in Hong Kong, China.

According to the Complainant, at one time the disputed domain name resolved to a website that impersonated the Complainant. The Complainant issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notice to the relevant webhosting company, and the content at the disputed domain name was removed.

At the time of rendering this decision, the disputed domain name produces an error message “没有找到站点”

(“no site found” in English).

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent operated a website that impersonate the
Complainant.

The Complainant also asserts that it appears the Respondent neglected to provide legitimate contact information including a full name, building number, street name, or valid phone number associated with the Registrant information. This has caused the Complainant to believe all of the WhoIs information was falsely manufactured during the disputed domain name’s registration, further showing evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith behaviour.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

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 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 other terms (here, “gen”) 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.

Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed impersonation of the Complainant) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

page 4

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant.

An asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. An asserting party cannot meet its burden by simply making conclusory statements unsupported by evidence. To allow a party to merely make factual claims without any supporting evidence would essentially eviscerate the

requirements of the Policy as both complainants and respondents could simply claim anything without any
proof. For this reason, UDRP panels have generally dismissed factual allegations that are not supported by
any bona fide documentary or other credible evidence. Snowflake, Inc. v. Ezra Silverman, WIPO Case No.
DIO2020-0007; Captain Fin Co. LLC v. Private Registration, NameBrightPrivacy.com / Adam Grunwerg,
WIPO Case No. D2021-3279.

In the present case, it is alleged that the Respondent operated a website that impersonated the Complainant. However, evidence showing this website was not provided in the Complaint, and currently, the website at the disputed domain name does not show this. The Complainant did provide evidence of a DMCA complaint,

and the website appears to have been taken down as a result. The Respondent did not deny the
Complainant’s claims of impersonation. The Panel is prepared to infer from the evidence provided that the

Respondent did in fact operate a website that impersonated the Complainant.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for impersonation constitutes bad faith.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Additionally, the Respondent provided what appears to be a false name and address to the Registrar, which is also evidence of bad faith.

The fact that the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith use and registration.

Having reviewed the record, 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 <bungegen.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/John Swinson/
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: March 11, 2025