Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Tran Thanh Tung, Tran Thanh Tung

WIPO Case No. D2025-1297

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Tran Thanh Tung, Tran Thanh Tung

Case No. D2025-1297

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland, represented by Syngenta Group,

Switzerland.

The Respondent is Tran Thanh Tung, Tran Thanh Tung, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <syngente-hanghieu.com> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a

Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2025.
On March 31, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 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 (GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM, GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC)
and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
April 4, 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 amended Complaint on

April 7, 2025.

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 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Rodrigo Azevedo as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 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 Syngenta Crop Protection AG, a Swiss company headquartered in Basel, that operates globally in the agrochemical and seed sectors and is a member of the Syngenta Group.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the SYNGENTA mark, including:

International Trademark Registration No. 732663, registered on March 8, 2000, with designations in various jurisdictions including Viet Nam, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Russian Federation.

The Complainant also operates a number of domain names incorporating the SYNGENTA trademark, including <syngenta.com> and <syngenta-hanghieu.com>, respectively registered on September 8, 1999 and August 28, 2023.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2025, and it is not linked to any active website.

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:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The trademark. The Complainant notes that substituting the letter “a” with an “e” in “syngenta” does not significantly change the appearance or pronunciation of the term. Further, “hanghieu” means “branded goods” in Vietnamese and is part of the Complainant’s official domain name <syngenta-hanghieu.com>. Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s trademark and its domain name.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with it, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that
the disputed domain name resolves to a non-functional website, constituting passive holding, which can
support a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Complainant further states that it sent a cease and desist
letter to the Respondent but received no reply. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name
was registered to mislead users into believing it was associated with the Complainant, thereby exploiting the

reputation of the SYNGENTA trademark.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:

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

Annexes 4 to the Complaint show numerous trademark registrations for SYNGENTA. Based on the
available record, the Panel finds 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 disputed domain name imitates the Complainant’s trademark SYNGENTA, substituting letter “a” by letter
“e”, with the addition of the term “-hanghieu” as a suffix. The disputed domain name also presents the
generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com”.

Although minimal alterations on the trademark (such as the substitution of one letter among eight), as well as the addition of symbols (such a hyphen) and other terms (here, “hanghieu”, which means “branded goods” in Vietnamese) 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, sections 1.8 and 1.9.

It is also well established that the addition of a gTLD (such as “.com”) is typically disregarded when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark as such is viewed as a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and 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.

page 4

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 no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent is not an authorized representative, nor has obtained any permission for registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s famous trademark (with minor variation), a hyphen and

additional descriptive words, indicate an awareness of the Complainant and its trademark and an intent to

take unfair advantage of such, which does not support a finding of any rights or legitimate interests.

Based on the available record, 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.

The disputed domain name includes the distinctive trademark SYNGENTA with minor variation. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.

Actually, at the time when the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, the SYNGENTA trademark was already famous and directly connected with the Complainant’s products and services worldwide.

The Panel concludes that it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark and that the registration of the disputed domain name was a mere coincidence.

The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.

However, UDRP panels have frequently found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain
name (passive holding) does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3;
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; and Polaroid
Corporation v. Jay Strommen, WIPO Case No. D2005-1005.

The non-collaborative posture of the Respondent, i.e., (a) not presently using the disputed domain name, (b) not indicating any intention to use it, and (c) not at least providing justifications for the typosquatted use of a famous third party trademark, when notified by the Complainant and during the present proceeding, certainly cannot be used in benefit of the Respondent in this Panel’s opinion, which circumstances, together with (d)

the lack of any plausible justification for the adoption of the term “syngente-hanghieu” by the Respondent,
are enough in this Panel’s view to characterize bad faith registration and use in the present case.

Therefore, having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

page 5

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 <syngente-hanghieu.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Rodrigo Azevedo/
Rodrigo Azevedo
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2025