Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Burke Kim

WIPO Case No. D2025-3311

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Burke Kim

Case No. D2025-3311

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland, represented internally.

The Respondent is Burke Kim, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <syyngenta.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 18, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On August 20, 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 August 20, 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/amended Complaint on August 20, 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 August 21, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 12, 2025.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a science-based agritech company, with 30,00 employees in over 90 countries, trading under its SYNGENTA trademark. Details of world-wide registrations of its SYNGENTA trademark has been supplied to the Panel. These registrations include International Registration No. 732663, registered on

March 8, 2000, and US Registration No. 3,036,058, registered on December 27, 2005.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 2, 2025, and resolves to the Registrar’s hosting webpage.

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 a typo variation of the Complainant’s mark, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its SYNGENTA trademark in connection with the

registration of a domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant further submits that the passive holding of the

disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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. The mere addition of a second “y” in the disputed domain name does not detract from this finding.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 3

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Taking the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark into consideration, the Panel finds
it implausible that the disputed domain name was adopted without the Complainant’s trademark in mind.

This justifies a finding of registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith, and the Panel so finds.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name resolving only to a registrar’s hosting page would not
prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having
reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s
trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this
case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of 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 <syyngenta.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/George R. F. Souter/
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: September 30, 2025