Solvay SA v lancelot xue

WIPO Case No. D2023-1483

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Solvay SA v. lancelot xue

Case No. D2023-1483

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Solvay SA, Belgium, represented by PETILLION, Belgium.

The Respondent is lancelot xue, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <solvayconference.top> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2023. On which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 13, 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 April 13, 2023.
April 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the

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 April 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 17, 2023.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 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 a Belgian company, founded in 1863. It trades in the chemistry industry under its
SOLVAY trademark, employs over 22,000 people in 61 countries. In 2022, its turnover was EUR 13.4 billion.

It is the proprietor of numerous registrations of its SOLVAY trademark internationally, including European Union Trade mark registration No. 000067801, registered on May 30, 2000, and International Trademark registration No. 1171614, registered on February 28, 2013.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 14, 2023, and appears to be currently unused.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SOLVAY trademark, containing its SOLVAY trademark in its entirety, together with merely the descriptive term “conference”.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its SOLVAY trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Confusing similarity

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights to the trademark SOLVAY for the purposes of these proceedings.

It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top- Level Domain (“gTLD”) may generally be disregarded when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. The Panel considers the “.top” gTLD to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and finds that it may be disregarded here.

The Complainant’s SOLVAY trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the descriptive word “conference” to the trademark SOLVAY does not detract from this finding.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the

Policy in connection with the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel considers that the Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to provide a prima facie case under this heading.

page 3

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by
the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the
requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with
evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented
a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent did not advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the

Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that the finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstances of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self- evident that the Complainant’s SOLVAY trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, in connection with the disputed domain name and so finds.

Since the decision in Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, it has become well-established in subsequent decisions that non-use of a disputed domain name does not evade the finding of use in bad faith if a complainant can demonstrate that any use of the domain name would be likely to automatically damage the complainant’s legitimate interests. The circumstances of the present case are such that implied affiliation with the Complainant’s would automatically arise with any use of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that a finding of use in bad faith is appropriate, and so finds.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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, <solvayconference.top>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/George R. F. Souter/
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: June 14, 2023