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


Bayer AG v. Baharsys Telecom, Baharsys Co.

Case No. DIR2020-0014

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bayer AG, Germany, represented by BPM Legal., Germany.

The Respondent is Baharsys Telecom, Baharsys Co., Iran (Islamic Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bayer.ir> is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2020, IRNIC 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 .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 July 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 19, 2020.

On August 16, 2020, the Center received a communication from the Respondent in response to which the Center sent to the Parties an email regarding possible settlement. On August 20, 2020, the Complainant requested suspension of the proceeding. Accordingly, on the same day, the Center notified to the Parties of the suspension of the proceeding until September 19, 2020. Following a number of requests by the Complainant to extend the suspension period, the proceeding remained suspended until December 29, 2020. During the suspension period, the Respondent submitted, on October 23, 2020, a communication indicating its willingness to comply with the remedy requested by the Complainant, namely transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On December 20, 2020, the Complainant requested the reinstitution of the proceeding due to the technical issues that arose in connection with the attempted transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Center reinstituted the proceeding on December 29, 2020, allowing the Respondent until January 3, 2021, to submit a response. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, on January 4, 2021, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment.

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international pharmaceutical company which was established in 1863. It operates principally in the fields of healthcare, nutrition and plant protection. The Complainant has more than 115,000 employees worldwide.

The Complainant owns many registered trademarks for BAYER including German trademark no. 44115, registered on June 2, 1900, in classes 2 and 5.

The disputed domain name was created on July 14, 2010. According to the Registrar, it was acquired by the Respondent on September 3, 2013.

As of August 23, 2017, the disputed domain name redirected to the Complainant’s website.

The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to a website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

It is unnecessary to consider the Parties’ contentions in view of the basis for the Panel’s decision, explained below.

6. Discussion and Findings

Section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)1 observes that, where a respondent has given its consent on the record to the transfer remedy sought by a complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. However, panels may still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits in certain circumstances including where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision.

Here, as explained in section 3 above, the Respondent has consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant. Not only has the Complainant indicated that it accepts such consent, the Parties have attempted to implement the transfer but were apparently unsuccessful for technical reasons. In these circumstances, the Panel does not consider that any of the factors favouring a substantive decision on the merits apply and, accordingly, the Panel has decided to order transfer of the disputed domain name on the basis of the Respondent’s consent.

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 disputed domain name <bayer.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: January 22, 2021

1 Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has referred to WIPO Overview 3.0, where appropriate.