Syngenta Participations AG v Reshetnikov Maksim Vladimirovich

WIPO Case No. D2022-4132

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Syngenta Participations AG v. Reshetnikov Maksim Vladimirovich

Case No. D2022-4132

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Syngenta Participations AG, Switzerland, represented internally.

The Respondent is Reshetnikov Maksim Vladimirovich, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <syngenta.host> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Beget LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 2, 2022. On November 2, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 7, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 7, 2022, 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 November 7, 2022.

On November 7, 2022, the Center sent an email to the Parties in both English and Russian regarding the language of the proceedings. On November 7, 2022, the Complainant reconfirmed its request that English be the language of the proceedings and provided arguments in support of its request. The Respondent did not provide any comments regarding the language of the proceedings.

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 in English and Russian of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 16, 2022. In accordance with

page 2

the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 6, 2022. The Respondent did not submit

any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 7, 2022.

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 2022. 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 an agro technology company with 30,000 employees in 90 countries. It is particularly focused on the production of products protecting crops against weeds, insects and diseases, as well as production of vegetable and flower seeds. In 2021, the Complainant had global sales of over USD 16 billion.

The Complainant is the owner of several SYNGENTA trademark registrations, including:

- the International Trademark Registration SYNGENTA No. 732663 registered on March 8, 2000; and
- the Unites States Trademark Registration SYNGENTA No. 3036058 registered on December 27, 2005.

The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names incorporating its SYNGENTA trademark, including <syngenta.com>.

The Domain Name was registered on September 24, 2022.

As of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Name has resolved to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. According to the case.

First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SYNGENTA trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the

Domain Name.

Third, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows:

(i) the 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 the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met.

At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of
probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

A. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Russian. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Panel may also order that any documents submitted in a language other than that of the proceeding be translated.

As noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition (see, e.g., General Electric Company v. Edison Electric Corp. a/k/a Edison Electric Corp. General Energy, Edison GE, Edison-GE and EEEGE.COM, WIPO Case No. D2006-0334).

The Complainant has submitted a request that the language of the proceeding be English. The Complainant notes that the Domain Name contains Latin characters and the English word “host” as the extension. Moreover, the Complainant contends that changing the language of the proceedings to Russian would entail significant translation expenses and impose an undue burden on the Complainant.

The Panel considers that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Russian. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding, even though it was notified in English and Russian regarding the language of

the proceeding.

Thus, taking these circumstances into account, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant holds valid SYNGENTA trademark registrations which precede the registration of the have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696).

page 4

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration
requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1,
WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark. Thus, the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:

(i) that it has used or made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain
name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.

On the contrary, it results from the evidence in the record that the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark
registrations predate the registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the record that the
Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the SYNGENTA trademark or to
register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the
Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Moreover, it does not result from the evidence in the record that the Respondent makes use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or it makes a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. In fact, it does not result from the

evidence in the record that Domain Name has been used in any active way to date. Furthermore, the Panel
finds that the Domain Name is inherently misleading. See section 2.5.1, WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1, WIPO Overview 3.0.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation:

(i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a
competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket
costs directly related to the domain name; or

page 5

(ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a
trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct;

or

(iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor; or

(iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a

product or service on a website or location.

As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the SYNGENTA trademark predate the registration of the trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name, as it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark is well known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not likely reasonably ignore the reputation of products under this trademark. In sum, the Respondent in all likelihood registered the Domain Name with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s SYNGENTA trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant presented evidence that the Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. holding, under the totality of circumstances of the case, may not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Here, given the Respondent’s failure to participate in this proceeding, and the implausible good faith use to which the inherently misleading Domain Name could be put, the Panel agrees with the above.

In the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the

For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the requirements under 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 Domain Name <syngenta.host> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Piotr Nowaczyk/
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: January 3, 2023