About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BASF SE v. Jim Welsh

Case No. D2010-2000

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BASF SE of Ludwigshafen, Germany, represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP, Germany.

The Respondent is Jim Welsh of Saint Helena, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <basfgroup.com> (“the Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 22, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 3, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 23, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 29, 2010.

The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury, as the sole panelist in this matter on January 10, 2011. 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, together with numerous subsidiaries, is the largest chemical company in the world. It has registered the trademark BASF throughout the world including, on August 20, 1987 in Germany, under No. IR00521841. The Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2010 in the name of Respondent, without his knowledge or consent. Next day the Complainant received an email purporting to be from “Jim, BasfGroup.com” offering to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. As of at least November 18, 2010 the Domain Name both resolved to a website showing sponsored links, with a statement that it may be for sale, and was offered for sale on the “www.sedo.co.uk” website.

The Respondent agrees that he has no interest in the Domain Name and has consented to its transfer to the Complainant but, since the Domain Name was not in fact registered by him, he has no access to the account to enable the transfer. Accordingly this matter has been referred to the Panel for decision.

Following the commencement of this Administrative Proceeding, the Center received email communications from “Bai”, claiming to be the owner of the Domain Name and to have registered it on October 30, 2010 for a games project, and that “BASF” is the abbreviation of “BaShiFen”, an Asian poker.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant says the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BASF trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

As mentioned, the Respondent, in his informal communications, agrees that he has no interest in the Domain Name, which was not registered by him or with his consent, and he agrees to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.

6. Discussion and Findings

This appears to be a case of a person registering the Domain Name in the name of the Respondent in order to hide his or her identity and for the purpose of cashing in on a famous trademark. The Panel disregards the communications from “Bai” having found that said person is not the registrant of the Domain Name. The Respondent is an innocent party who has, very properly, consented to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. In the circumstances of this case, an order for transfer should be made and, as in Jeffrey Gorman (Jeff Gorman) v. Cocktails For a Cause, WIPO Case No. D2007-1029, the Panel concludes that it is inappropriate to make findings under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the domain name, <basfgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/