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

Bunzl UK Limited v. Godwin Olopa

Case No. D2018-0517

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bunzl UK Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Stevens & Bolton, LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Godwin Olopa of Kassel, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bunzlmail.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 9, 2018, the Registrar 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” 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 15, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2018.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2018. 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 part of the multinational Bunzl group of companies. The Bunzl Group specializes in the distribution and outsourcing of non-food consumables for the foodservice, grocery, cleaning and hygiene, safety, retail, and healthcare industries. It has offices worldwide with a presence in 30 countries and its headquarters in London. The Bunzl Group established its first operation in London in 1938 and was listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1957. Bunzl plc is a Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 company and the Bunzl Group has grown to employ over 16,000 employees. In 2016 it reported revenue of over GBP 7 billion.

The Bunzl Group owns various registered United Kingdom and European trademarks, including European Union trademark number 004999074 for BUNZL, registered on June 27, 2007. In addition, the Complainant has significant goodwill and reputation in the name “Bunzl”. The Bunzl Group owns several domain names, for example <bunzl.com>, <bunzlcard.com>, <bunzlchs.com>, <bunzlcatering.co.uk>, <bunzlhealthcare.co.uk>, and <bunzldistribution.com>.

According to the Registrar, the Respondent registered the Domain Name on March 1, 2018. The Domain Name resolves, at the time of the drafting this Decision, to an error page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations and argues that it has both registered and unregistered rights in BUNZL. The Complainant argues that the additional “mail” used in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Hence, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Complainant documents that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that given the strength of the Complainant’s rights in the mark BUNZL and the fact that the word has no recognized meaning other than to refer to the Complainant, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. As documented, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group. By using the Domain Name this way, the Respondent has acted intentionally to damage the Complainant’s business and / or to derive fraudulent financial gain. Moreover, the Respondent is blocking the Complainant from using the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark BUNZL.

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of “mail” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. It is unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Name without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. As documented by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group. This is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the Respondent’s actions, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name.

Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails is clear evidence of both bad faith registration and use.

The bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name <bunzlmail.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2018

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/