LANXESS Deutschland GmbH v Toure Madegbe, Madegbe Toure

WIPO Case No. D2025-1089

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LANXESS Deutschland GmbH v. Toure Madegbe, Madegbe Toure

Case No. D2025-1089

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LANXESS Deutschland GmbH, Germany, represented by Wolpert Rechsanwälte,

Germany.

The Respondent is Toure Madegbe, Madegbe Toure, Estonia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <de-lanxess.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2025. On March 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 18, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 19, 2025.

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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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 German company active in the development, manufacturing and marketing of chemical products.

The Complainant owns the European Union Trade Mark LANXESS n° 003696581 (registered on June 27, 2005, in classes 1, 2, 4 and 17) and n° 006596514 (registered on February 13, 2009, in classes 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45). It further owns the domain name <lanxess.com>.

On January 27, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page.

The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails giving the false impression that they would originate from the Complainant, in particular by using the name of a Complainant’s former employee reproducing the footer of an official address originating from the Complainant. Such an exchange notably took place on February 18 and 19, 2025, when the Respondent pretended to make an order with a third party company.

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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark as it entirely incorporates its LANXESS trademark and that the addition of the letters “de” will be understood as referring to Germany.

The Complainant then is of the view that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. It has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its trademark
LANXESS and the Respondent is not known under that name.

Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as evidenced by the fact that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails impersonating the Complainant, notably by using the identity of a former Complainant employee.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “[…] 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”.

page 3

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

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

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 LANXESS 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.

The mere addition of the letters “de-” in the beginning of the disputed domain name will be understood as referring to Germany, the seat of the Complainant, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the LANXESS trademark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. 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.

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

page 4

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 held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as impersonating the Complainant by sending emails pretending to originate from Complainant’s official email accounts constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. 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 <de-lanxess.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Philippe Gilliéron/
Philippe Gilliéron
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2025