WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lonza Ltd. v. jamshid ranjeh, Ertebatat Net Mihan

Case No. DIR2021-0018

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lonza Ltd., Switzerland, represented Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., United States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is jamshid ranjeh, Ertebatat Net Mihan, Iran (Islamic Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lonza.ir> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC (the “Registry”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2021. On August 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 24, 2021, 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 September 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 28, 2021. The Respondent sent an email responding to the Center on September 8, 2021, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the Center on the same day. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on October 7, 2021.

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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 part of the Lonza group which is one of the leading companies providing manufacturing services to the pharmaceutical, biotech and specialty ingredients markets, with revenues of over USD 2.7 billion in 2020 in the United States alone.

The Complainant is the owner of multiple trade mark registrations for the LONZA mark in over 30 jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the LONZA trade mark (Registration No. 0956300) registered in the United States on April 3, 1973 and the LONZA European Union trade mark (Registration No. 001101898) registered on July 3, 2000. The Complainant also owns and operates the website “www.lonza.com”.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on December 7, 2013. The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s LONZA trade mark as it reproduces the Complainant’s LONZA mark.

(b) The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has never authorised or given permission to the Respondent, who is not associated with the Complainant in any way, to use its LONZA trade mark or register the Disputed Domain Name. There is also no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves appears to be inactive, and therefore such use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services.

(c) The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s LONZA mark, therefore the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its LONZA trade mark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s bona fide or legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, given these factors, the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent sent an email response to the Center on September 8, 2021. However, this appears to be an automated message stating that the recipient will not be able to view and respond to the Center’s initial email sent on September 8, 2021. In the past, panels have typically treated a respondent’s submission of a so-called “informal response” in a similar manner as a respondent default. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)¹ . Therefore, the Panel finds that the lack of a formal response by the Respondent in this case would also constitute the Respondent’s default.

The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403).

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the LONZA trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.

It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.ir” in this case) may be disregarded. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s LONZA trade mark in its entirety without any prefixes or suffixes.

As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s LONZA trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a disputed domain name, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the LONZA trade mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the LONZA trade mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to him of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel agrees that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot be regarded as legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website which is being passively held. Such use of the Disputed Domain Name is capable of misleading and diverting visitors and/or tarnishing the Complainant’s LONZA trade mark.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Respondent has trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that the Respondent has become known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can already by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant’s LONZA trade mark appears to be fairly well-known worldwide. A quick Internet search shows that the top search results returned for “lonza” are the Complainant’s official website and several third party websites making references to or selling the Complainant’s products and services. Therefore, given that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s LONZA trade mark in its entirety, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the LONZA trade mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name.

In addition, the Panel finds that the following factors further support a finding that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith:

(i) The Respondent failed to submit a substantive response to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the Disputed Domain Name;

(ii) It is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Name that would amount to good faith use, given that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s LONZA mark, which is well known worldwide, and similar to the Complainant’s official domain name <lonza.com>. Any use of the Disputed Domain Name would likely mislead third parties into believing the Disputed Domain Name is associated with and/or endorsed by the Complainant, thereby causing harm to the Complainant’s legitimate rights; and

(iii) Having considered the relevant factors, such as the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a substantive response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name may be put, the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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 <lonza.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: November 8, 2021

¹Given the similarities between the .IR Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel will refer to previous UDRP decisions and the WIPO Overview 3.0 when relevant