Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v David Chin, DEVI PACKAGE

WIPO Case No. D2025-0979

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. David Chin, DEVI PACKAGE

Case No. D2025-0979

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A., Switzerland, represented by Aera A/S, Denmark.

The Respondent is David Chin, DEVI PACKAGE, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tetra-packaging.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2025. On March 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 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 March 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 amended Complaint on March 14, 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 March 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 8, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any Response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2025.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 25, 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 Swiss corporation which is part of the Tetra Laval Group. The Tetra Laval Group consists of three independent industry groups: Tetra Pak, DeLaval, and Sidel Group. The Tetra Pak Group is a multinational food processing and packaging company founded in 1947 in Sweden by Ruben Rausing. The Tetra Pak Group develops, markets and sells equipment for processing, packaging and distribution of food products. It employs more than 25,000 people and is operative in more than 160 countries worldwide.

The Complainant owns the TETRA trademark, which is registered as European Union Trademark (EUTM) and 37.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2024 and has been used for an email phishing scheme impersonating the CFO of the Complainant to obtain confidential information.

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 confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior TETRA trademark merely adding the generic word “packaging”, a hyphen and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, none of which prevents the said confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The disputed domain name which carries an inherently high risk of affiliation with the Complainant has been used for a fraudulent email scheme impersonating the CFO of the Complainant to try to obtain confidential information. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Phishing is registration and use in bad faith per se.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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.

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.

page 3

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.

Although the addition of other terms here “packaging” 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. Nor does the addition of a hyphen

as mere punctuation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds 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.

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 Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a fraudulent email scheme impersonating the CFO of the Complainant to obtain confidential information.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for an email phishing scheme to impersonate the CFO of the Complainant to obtain confidential information.

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.

page 4

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing, constitutes bad faith. and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 <tetra-packaging.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Dawn Osborne/
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 25, 2025