Lonza Ltd. v 聂任飞

WIPO Case No. D2024-4923

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lonza Ltd. v. 聂任飞

Case No. D2024-4923

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lonza Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., United States of

America (“US”).

The Respondent is 聂任飞, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lonza-gz.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 November 27, 2024. On November 28, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2024, 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 December 3, 2024, 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 December 3, 2024.

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 December 16, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 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, part of Lonza Group Ltd, is a company providing manufacturing services to the pharmaceutical, biotech and nutrition markets.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for LONZA around the world, such as but not limited to:

Trademark	Jurisdiction	Registration Number	Registration Date
LONZA	China	70083	May 20, 2002
LONZA	European Union	001101898	July 3, 2000
LONZA	Japan	3157933	September 30, 1992

Within the US, The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

Trademark	Registration Number	Registration Date
LONZA	956,300	April 3, 1973
LONZA	4,483,125	February 18, 2014
LONZA (stylized)	4,639,815	November 18, 2014
LONZA	4,922,144	March 22, 2016
LONZA (stylized)	5,222,498	June 13, 2017

These trademark registrations relate to a wide variety of Trademark Classes, covering various goods and services.

The Respondent is an individual based in China. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2024. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to a gambling website. At the time of this Decision, it redirected to a page promoting various services including gambling services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant and 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 identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed in its
Complaint:

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

has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest 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 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 the term “-gz”, and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” 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.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

page 4

First, the registrations by the Complainant of the trademark LONZA constitute prima facie evidence of the authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in the disputed domain name.

Second, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which suggests a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Third, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on October 29, 2024, came significantly after the Complainant’s registration of its trademarks. Prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s trademarks had enjoyed a high degree of fame and reputation which the

Respondent was not authorized to share.

In any event, 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1.

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.

As stated above, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant’s registration of the trademarks, and the Complainant had been marketing and selling its goods and services using these trademarks well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the marks. As such, bad faith can be reasonably inferred.

Further, the redirection of the disputed domain name to a site promoting gambling is evidence the disputed domain name has been registered to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services provided and hence shows bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 <lonza-gz.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Douglas Clark/
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: February 10, 2025