Bunge Limited, Bunge Asia Pte. Ltd, and Bunge SA v. Ismailov Iskandar
Claim Number: FA2203001989818
Complainant is Bunge Limited, Bunge Asia Pte. Ltd, and Bunge SA ("Complainant"), represented by Renee Reuter of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Ismailov Iskandar ("Respondent"), Uzbekistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bunge-oil.net>, registered with Eranet International Limited.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 25, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 25, 2022.
On March 31, 2022, Eranet International Limited confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bunge-oil.net> domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Eranet International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 4, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 25, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bunge-oil.net. Also on April 4, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, and two subsidiaries thereof. Complainant has used the BUNGE mark in connection with edible oils and other products and services for many years. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for BUNGE in standard character form and otherwise in the United States and China.
The disputed domain name <bunge-oil.net> was registered in February 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. It does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and does not have permission to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <bunge-oil.net> is confusingly similar to its BUNGE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <bunge-oil.net> incorporates Complainant's registered BUNGE trademark, adding a hyphen, the generic term "oil," and the ".net" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bunge Ltd. / Bunge France S.A.S. / Bunge S.A. v. ALAN GALMES / i3f6yr / Luengo Galmes / bunge sas, FA 1986938 (Forum Apr. 12, 2022) (finding <bunge-sas.net> confusingly similar to BUNGE); Bunge Ltd., Bunge SA, Bunge Management Services, Inc. & Bunge CIS LLC v. Ekaterina Kochergina, FA 1982727 (Forum Mar. 9, 2022) (finding <bunge-oil.com> confusingly similar to BUNGE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Bunge Ltd. / Bunge CIS LLC v. Aleksey Kolesnik / my self, FA 1987262 (Forum Apr. 11, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Bunge Ltd. v. Evgenii Fefelov, FA 1956666 (Forum Aug. 20, 2021) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name combining Complainant's registered mark with a generic term associated with Complainant's business, and does not yet appear to have made any active use of the name. Respondent has not come forward with any explanation for the selection of the domain name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, perhaps by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor thereof or using it to support a fraudulent phishing scheme, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Bunge Ltd. / Bunge CIS LLC v. Aleksey Kolesnik / my self, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Bunge Ltd. v. Evgenii Fefelov, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bunge-oil.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page