Ecolab USA Inc. v Siddharth Mavinkurve, IBM Hadoop

WIPO Case No. D2025-1309

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ecolab USA Inc. v. Siddharth Mavinkurve, IBM Hadoop

Case No. D2025-1309

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ecolab USA Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg

Traurig, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Siddharth Mavinkurve, IBM Hadoop, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ecolab-careers.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on April 2, 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 April 8, 2025.

The Center verified that 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 April 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Aaron Newell as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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 a company based in the United States that has used the trademark ECOLAB for over thirty years in respect of a business offering a range of cleaning, hygiene and infection prevention products and services. The Complainant is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and claims sales of approximately USD 16 billion in 2024.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trademark rights around the world for its ECOLAB trademark,
and in particular over thirty registrations on the United States Federal Register, all registered between 1988
and 2012. These include United States Trademark Registration No. 4228523 ECOLAB (word mark) in class
11 covering, among other goods, water treatment devices and equipment (registered on October 23, 2012),
and United States Trademark Registration No. 1497423 ECOLAB (word mark) in classes 7 and 37 covering,
among other goods and services, laundry machines in class 7 and leasing of dishwashing machines in
class 37 (registered July 26, 1988).

The Complainant’s primary online presence is at the domain name <ecolab.com>, which it registered and has used for a website promoting its business since at least as early as 1996. The Complainant also has a presence on various popular social media platforms, including Facebook and X (formerly Twitter).

The disputed domain name was registered on November 12, 2024. There is no evidence in the case file relating to the disputed domain name having been used for a website. There is evidence in the case file demonstrating that the disputed domain name was used as a contact address on multiple letters issued by a

“Senior HR Manager” for “Ecolab Incorporated”, on headed correspondence featuring a logo that is a
registered trademark of the Complainant and used by the Complainant variously throughout its website and
online presence generally. The letters purport to be sent on behalf of “Ecolab Incorporated”, and to make
offers of employment to specific job applicants.

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint or otherwise engage in the proceedings. There is also no evidence of the Respondent having engaged directly with the Complainant.

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:

(i)        the disputed domain name wholly incorporates and is therefore confusingly similar to its registered

ECOLAB trademark;

(ii)       the inclusion of the term “careers” in the disputed domain name does nothing to distinguish the

disputed domain name or reduce the potential for confusion, but rather exacerbates any likelihood of
confusion because it is likely to lead Internet users to believe that they are dealing with a function within the
Complainant’s business that promotes open employment positions;

(iii) the Respondent has no rights and/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no connection with the Complainant, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has not used or

page 3

prepared to use disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has not
been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to register and/or use the disputed
domain name, and rather has used the disputed domain name for illegitimate purposes;

(iv) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s use of its ECOLAB trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, used false contact and identification information when registering the disputed domain name, and used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and to mislead prospective employees into

purchasing a false training certification and disclosing sensitive personal information.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving:

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

the Complainant has rights;

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

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

The Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant, however paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if the Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.

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 the trademark ECOLAB for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Complainant’s ECOLAB trademark 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 the word “careers”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this 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.

page 4

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.

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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have frequently held that use of a domain name to send deceptive emails, including for the purposes of obtaining sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants and/or or to solicit payment through deceptive or fraudulent means, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information as an indication of bad faith. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.6.

These are the circumstances alleged by the Complainant, and supported by its evidence, in the present case.

The Respondent has done nothing to rebut or deny the Complainant’s allegations, or otherwise to explain the conduct evident from the record.

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

page 5

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 <ecolab-careers.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Aaron Newell/ Aaron Newell Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2025