Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Scott McKinney

WIPO Case No. D2025-2170

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Scott McKinney

Case No. D2025-2170

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Scott McKinney, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <syngentaapps.online>, and <syngentaapps.site> are registered with

GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 6, 2025. On
June 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain names. On June 6, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names
which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private Name, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June
12, 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 June 12, 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 June 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 7, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 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 global science-based agrochemical technology company specializing in agrochemicals for crop protection, vegetables and flower seeds, with 30,000 employees in 90 countries

The Complainant owns, among others, the following trademark registrations:

Date of

Trademark	Registration No.	Jurisdiction	Registration	Class
Class 1, Class 2, Class 5, Class 7, Class 8, Class 9, Class 10, Class
United States of	December 27,
SYNGENTA	3036058	16, Class 29,
America	2005.	Class 30, Class 31, Class 32, Class 35, Class 36, Class 41, and Class 42. Class 1, Class 2, Class 5, Class 7, Class 8, Class 9,
International	Class 10, Class
SYNGENTA	732663	March 8, 2000.	16, Class 29,
trademark.	Class 30, Class 31, Class 32, Class 35, Class 36, Class 41, and Class 42.
November 24,
SYNGENTA	1999/21793	South Africa	Class 5.
2009.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names, such as <syngenta.com>, <syngenta.co.za>,
<syngenta.com.au>, <syngenta.fr>, <syngenta-us.com>, <syngentagroup.cn>, <syngenta.co.uk>,
<syngenta.co.in>, <syngenta.de>, <syngenta.ru> and <syngenta.com.vn> among others.

The disputed domain names <syngentaapps.online> and <syngentaapps.site> were registered on May 14, 2025. At the time of writing this Decision, the disputed domain name <syngentaapps.online> resolves to a website with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links which also displays a link that allows for the purchase of said

disputed domain name through the Registrar. On the other side, <syngentaapps.site> does not currently resolve to an active website. According to the Complaint, <syngentaapps.site> previously redirected to a login website using the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark and logo with agricultural imagery.

5. Parties’ Contentions

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.

page 3

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar

That the disputed domain names entirely comprise the Complainant’s global and well-known trademark SYNGENTA, with the addition of the common term “apps” which is a reference to a software application.

That the disputed domain names generate a risk of confusion among the public, who might think that they are owned and operated by the Complainant.

That, according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the incorporation of additional terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity

between a trademark and a disputed domain name under the first element.

That previous panels have found confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name
despite the addition of a generic terms such as “app” (citing Carrefour SA v. abudllah salimi, WIPO Case No.

D2022-2670).

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant, nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s

SYNGENTA trademarks.

III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

That the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.site> resolved to a website containing the Complainant’s
SYNGENTA trademark, logo and agricultural imagery to mislead the public into believing that said website
(as well as the consent form required to be filled-in therein as part of a log-in process) were created or
authorized by the Complainant. That this impersonation conduct increases the risk of individuals disclosing
information under the false impression that they were interacting with the Complainant (and cites Farfetch

UK Limited v. 雪 林,WIPO Case No. D2023-2628).

That previous panels have found bad faith when an impersonation page has been used to collect login
credentials (citing Principal Financial Services, Inc. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf /
Freedom Finance, My Freedom Finance, WIPO Case No. D2022-0489).

That the disputed domain name <syngentaapps.online> resolves to a parked free website, and that the non- use of a disputed domain name does not eliminate the possibility of finding bad faith under the Policy (citing Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

That according to the WIPO Overview 3.0, the non-use of a domain name including blank or “coming soon” pages would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding, and that in the present case the disputed domain name drives traffic to a website which could be misguiding for Internet users.

That the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent through the Registrant contact request form without receiving any reply, and that a non-response to said notifications can be considered as an element of bad faith (citing Societe des Produits Nestle SA v. Deleting domain, Umbeke Membe, WIPO Case No.

D2008-0738 and The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited v. Unasi Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2005-1218).

That the Respondent is misusing the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademarks through the disputed domain names, since the disputed domain name <syngentaapps.online> has been used to collect personal information fraudulently while the disputed domain name <syngentapps.site> is being passively held.

page 4

That the Respondent is using a privacy service and is non-responsive to contact attempts, which facts indicate that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith to deceive and potentially exploit the public.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that the Complainant must prove in order to successfully request remedies:

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

the Complainant has rights;

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

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

Given the Respondent’s default and therefore, failure to specifically address the case merits as they relate to
the three UDRP elements, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed
factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC
v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292; Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487; see also

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3).

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 names. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the SYNGENTA trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademarks because they reproduce said trademarks entirely (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). The incorporation of a term such as “apps” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant’s SYNGENTA

trademarks are recognizable in the disputed domain names (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; see
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas, WIPO Case No. D2007-0768; InfoSpace.com,
Inc. v. Hari Prakash, WIPO Case No. D2000-0076; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0553 and Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. South East Asia Tours,

WIPO Case No. D2004-0388).

The addition of the Top-Level Domains “.online” and “.site” to the disputed domain names constitutes a
technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing
identity or confusing similarity in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0268; SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0565; and Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero

Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1919 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).

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

page 5

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 to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has asserted that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use its SYNGENTA trademarks, or to register the disputed domain names (see Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. cenk erdogan, WIPO Case No.
D2023-3044; Amdocs Development Ltd. and Amdocs Software Systems Ltd. v. Nick Lamba, WIPO Case
No. D2023-2573; and Autodesk, Inc. v. Brian Byrne, meshIP, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0191).

The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.site> to redirect to a website displaying the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark and logo, and that said website comprises a fraudulent consent form soliciting information from users who think they are submitting said information to the Complainant.

The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.online> is being used to resolve to a website with PPC links, some of which are related to the Complainant’s activity. Therefore, no rights or legitimate interests can be found in favor of the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9. The parked page to which this disputed domain name resolves also includes a link to purchase the disputed domain name. Such use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent’s intention to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademarks or otherwise mislead Internet users.

The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The case file contains no evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye, WIPO Case No. D2016-1747; and Associated Newspapers Limited v. Manjeet Singh, WIPO Case No. D2019-2914).

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, its trademarks, and its business. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

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.

page 6

The Complainant has ascertained its rights over its SYNGENTA trademarks. The Panel notes that the dates
of registration of the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademarks significantly precede the date of registration of
the disputed domain names. Previous panels appointed under the Policy have found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can in itself create a presumption of bad faith (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview
3.0). This is so in the present case because the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademarks are well-known and
have been extensively used worldwide (see Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Vuong Tuong Trieu, Vuong
Tuong Trieu, WIPO Case No. D2025-1358; and Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Raymond Frangi, RMF
CONSTRUCTIONS PTY, WIPO Case No. D2025-2015).

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names on May 14, 2025, well after the Complainant obtained its first registrations for its SYNGENTA trademarks and began using said trademarks. The Respondent’s bad faith registration is evidenced by the fact that (1) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known SYNGENTA trademarks, as they incorporate said trademarks entirely; (2) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.site> to mislead Internet users into disclosing their information as part of a fraudulent log-in process; and (3) the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.online> is being used for a website with PPC links.

The case docket shows that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its potential clients, which
constitutes opportunistic bad faith (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also L’Oréal v. Contact
Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter, WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; and Gilead Sciences Ireland

UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2019-0980).

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (in the present case claimed
as impersonation/passing off, and fraudulent conduct aimed at unlawfully obtaining information from users
who think that they are dealing with the Complainant) constitutes bad faith. (see WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.4, Arla Foods Amba v. Michael Guthrie, M. Guthrie Building Solutions, WIPO Case No.
D2016-2213; Minerva S.A. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc., / GREYHAT SERVICES, WIPO
Case No. D2016-0385). The use of a domain name for illegal purposes, such as fraud or phishing activities,
constitutes bad faith under the Policy (see Banque Palatine v. Alex McQueen, HN LTD, WIPO Case No.
D2022-3190).

Additionally, the Panel also notes that the disputed domain name <syngentaapp.online> resolves to a parked website comprising PPC links to different websites, some of which offer goods/services that compete with those of the Complainant. Therefore, this Panel considers that the Respondent is trying to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant by misleading Internet users, for commercial gain, to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves (and the websites to which the PPC links redirect) by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of said websites, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; see also Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598).

Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the well-known nature and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain names, and finds that under the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name <syngentaapps.site> 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.

page 7

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 names <syngentaapps.online> and <syngentaapps.site> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kiyoshi Tsuru/
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: August 5, 2025