WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Chemours Company, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Case No. D2021-1659
1. The Parties
The Complainant is The Chemours Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bates & Bates LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, <mfachemours.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2021. On May 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 1, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 2, 2021, 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 4, 2021.
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 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2021.
The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 2021. 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.
The invitation to the Complainant to file an amended Complaint stemmed from the fact that the Domain Name was registered in the name of a privacy service. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar disclosed the name and address of the entity in whose name the Domain Name had been registered. The amended Complaint names Carolina Rodrigues, the underlying registrant, as the Respondent.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the United States. It is a chemical company, a spin-off from E.I. du Pont de Nemours. The name “Chemours” is a made-up name derived from an abbreviation of the word “chemical” and “ours” taken from “Nemours”. The name is protected worldwide by numerous registrations including United States Registration No. 5163745 CHEMOURS (standard character mark) registered on March 21, 2017, (application filed May 1, 2014) in numerous classes for a wide range of goods and services.
The Complainant operates a website connected to its domain name, <chemours.com>, which was registered on March 17, 2014. At the third level, <mfa.chemours.com>, the Complainant’s website features its Multi-Factor Authentication for cyber security of the Complainant’s authorized users and its protected database.
The Domain Name was registered on February 1, 2021, and currently redirects through a series of websites to a recruitment website at “www.totaljobs.com”. At the date of the Complaint the Domain Name redirected to a “ONESHOT KETO” website advertising dietary supplements.
The Respondent has been the subject of a very large number of complaints under the Policy since 2019. The Panel has utilized the Center’s decision search function, which is publicly available at the Center’s website, and counted approximately 200 such cases, the vast majority of which (perhaps all) resulted in findings of bad faith registration and use and transfer of the domain names in issue.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CHEMOURS registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s CHEMOURS registered trade mark, preceded by the letters “mfa” and followed by the “.com” generic Top Level Domain identifier.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:
“While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”
The Complainant’s registered trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As can be seen from the factual background set out in section 4 above, the Complainant has produced evidence to show that the “Chemours” name is a made-up word having no dictionary meaning and that the Complainant’s website at “www.chemours.com” features at the third level (<mfa.chemours.com>) its
Multi-Function Authentication for cyber security of the Complainant’s authorized users and its protected database.
The Domain Name has no obvious association with the Respondent and the websites to which the Domain Name has redirected are commercial websites having no obvious association with the Domain Name.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy; in other words, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent could have selected the Domain Name otherwise than with the Complainant’s Multi-Function Authentication webpage at <mfa.chemours.com> firmly in mind and with a view to deriving a commercial gain directly or indirectly through the commercial websites to which the Domain Name redirects.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As indicated in section 4 above, the Respondent is no stranger to proceedings under the Policy. The Panel adopts what was said by the learned panel in one of the previous cases against the Respondent Skyscanner Limited v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC/Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico WIPO Case No. D2020-0018:
“As discussed in the previous section, based on the uncontested facts, Respondent does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and there does not appear to be any legitimate justification for Respondent’s choice to register the Domain Name. Accordingly, on balance, there does not appear to be any other reason for Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name other than for the possibility to trade off the goodwill and reputation of Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark or otherwise create a false association with Complainant. With no response from Respondent, this claim is undisputed.
Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith is further borne out by the fact that Complainant also has shown that Respondent’s website at the Domain Name is being used to redirect traffic to Complainant’s website located at “www,skyscanner.net”. The Panel, while visiting the website at the Domain Name, notes that such Internet traffic is being redirected to various third-party websites, as well as redirecting to Complainant’s website. Thus, the Panel is satisfied that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. According to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), this is evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the Domain Name.”
The panel in that case went on to describe the Respondent as a serial cybersquatter. The Panel agrees. By the same reasoning the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4b(iv) of the Policy.
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, <mfachemours.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: July 12, 2021