Univar Solutions Inc. v Golden Bud

WIPO Case No. D2023-2333

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Univar Solutions Inc. v. Golden Bud

Case No. D2023-2333

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Univar Solutions Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Golden Bud, Cameroon.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <univarchemicalsolutions.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with

NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 30, 2023. connection with the Domain Name. On May 31, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 9, 2023, 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 June 9, 2023.

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 June 13, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 13, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 2023. 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 United States chemical and ingredient distribution company which since at least 1970
has offered its chemical and ingredient distribution services under the trademark “UNIVAR” (the “UNIVAR
Mark”). The Complainant promotes its products through various means including from its website at
“ (the “Complainant’s Website”).

The Complainant has held a trademark registration for the UNIVAR Mark in various jurisdictions since 1992, notably having held a United States trademark registration for the UNIVAR Mark since October 20, 1992, for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 39 and 42 (registration No. 1,724,817).

The Domain Name was registered on January 15, 2023. The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to
the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that prominently
reproduced the UNIVAR Mark, the Complainant’s logo, various other aspects of the overall design of the
Complainant’s Website and purported to offer chemical distribution solutions in direct competition with the

Complainant.

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 Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

a)	It is the owner of the UNIVAR Mark, having registered the UNIVAR Mark in various jurisdictions including the United States of America. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the UNIVAR Mark as it reproduces the UNIVAR Mark in its entirety and adds the terms “chemical solutions”.
b)	There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the UNIVAR Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the UNIVAR Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to pass off as the Complainant for commercial gain by purporting to offer chemical distribution solutions in direct competition with the Complainant. Such use is not a legitimate use of the Domain Name.
c)	The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to divert Internet users searching for the Complainant to the Respondent’s Website to disrupt the Complainant’s business and divert Internet users searching for the Complainant to a competing website for commercial gain. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

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 domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

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 Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms, here (chemical solutions), 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 Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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.

prima facie

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a case that the rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made
demonstrable 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. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by
the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- the Respondent is not 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 or service mark
at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

page 4

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in
the Domain Name.

The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to resolve to a webpage reproducing the Complainant’s
UNIVAR Mark, Complainant’s logo, aspects of the overall design of the Complainant’s Website and
purporting to offer chemical distribution services in direct competition with the Complainant does not amount
to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. Rather, it appears that the purpose behind the
Respondent’s Website is to encourage visitors, under the impression that they are dealing with the

Complainant, to conduct business with the Respondent, such conduct not being bona fide.

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.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or
other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on
the Respondent’s website or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.1.4.

The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the UNIVAR Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has provided no explanation, and neither it is immediately obvious, why an entity would register a domain name incorporating the UNIVAR Mark (with the addition of the terms “chemical solutions”) and redirect it to a website purportedly offering chemical solution distribution services unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its UNIVAR Mark.

The Respondent’s Website purports to offer chemical solution distribution services in direct competition with the Complainant. Noting the coined nature of the UNIVAR Mark, the nature of the Respondent’s Website and the absence of any explanation for the registration, the Panel considers that the most likely explanation is that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the UNIVAR Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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, <univarchemicalsolutions.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nicholas Smith/
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: August 8, 2023