The Chemours Company FC, LLC v Redacted for Privacy, Withheld for

WIPO Case No. D2022-1395

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Redacted for Privacy, Withheld for
Privacy ehf / Syed Naqvi

Case No. D2022-1395

1. The Parties

The Complainant is The Chemours Company FC, LLC, United States of America (“United States”),

represented by Bates & Bates LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Redacted for Privacy, Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Syed Naqvi, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <teflon.one> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 19, 2022.

On April 20, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 20, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 27, 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 May 5, 2022.

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 the due date for Response was May 26, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 2, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 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 a 2015 spin-off of E.I. du Pont de Nemour and Company, a global chemical company.

TEFLON coatings are used on products ranging from cookware, apparel, automotive, home and garden, eyeglass lenses to wires and cables.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for TEFLON such as the following:

- the European Union Trademark Registration No. 0432120, for the word TEFLON, filed on November 15,
1996 and registered on April 7, 1999 for goods in IC 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,

25, 27; and

- the United Kingdon Trademark Registration No. UK00000728185, for the word TEFLON, filed and

registered on March 18, 1954 for goods in IC 1.

The Complainant owns over 200 domain names incorporating the TEFLON mark, such as <teflon.com>

(the main website registered on June 13, 1997), <teflon.net>, <teflon.uk> or <teflon.us>.

The disputed domain name <teflon.one> was registered on November 26, 2021 and, at the time of filing the

Complaint, it resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates and is confusingly similar to the trademark TEFLON, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and

the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith knowing the Complainant’s

trademark and business. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the absence of a Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii)          the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

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

page 3

The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the TEFLON trademark.

The disputed domain name <teflon.one> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.one”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing

similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

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

Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark

TEFLON, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license, or authorization whatsoever to use the mark TEFLON, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Under the Policy, “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. If the respondent fails to
come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second

element”. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant

evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, and without prejudice to the above, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the

Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the

WIPO Overview 3.0.

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant holds trademark rights in TEFLON since 1945 and domain name registrations since 1997.

The disputed domain name was registered in 2021 and reproduces exactly the Complainant’s distinctive

trademark.

From the above and the available record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting its trademark.

At the time of filing the Complaint, the website under the disputed domain name was inactive.

page 4

From the inception of the UDRP, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or

“coming soon” or other similar inactive page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of

passive holding. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of

bad faith include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark and the failure of the

respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use. See
section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

As previously mentioned, the Complainant holds trademark registrations for TEFLON for more than 70 years; TEFLON trademark gained reputation worldwide; the Complainant holds over 200 domain names

incorporating the TEFLON mark; the disputed domain name reproduces exactly the Complainant’s

trademark and the Respondent failed to participate in this proceeding and thus to provide any argument for

choosing the disputed domain name.

Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or

confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith

for the purpose of the Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 <teflon.one> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marilena Comanescu

Marilena Comanescu

Sole Panelist
Date: July 4, 2022