Bunge Limited v. John Wallor
Claim Number: FA2203001987258
Complainant is Bunge Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri, USA. Respondent is John Wallor (“Respondent”), Arkansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bungecorp.com>, registered with Namecheap, Inc..
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 7, 2022. The Forum received payment on March 7, 2022.
On March 8, 2022, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bungecorp.com> domain name is registered with Namecheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namecheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 4, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bungecorp.com. Also on March 14, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Founded in 1818, Complainant is an agricultural company, well-known in the shipping, agribusiness, specialty oils, milling, sugar, bioenergy and plant protein development industries in many areas around the globe.
Complainant has rights in the BUNGE mark through its registration with inter alia the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <bungecorp.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUNGE mark.
Complainant has also registered the domain name <bunge.com>, which directs to its main website and promotes Complainant’s goods and services.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <bungecorp.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BUNGE mark. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes himself off as Complainant in email and uses the domain name to redirect to Complainant’s own website at <bunge.com>, which is further evidence that the Respondent is trying to pass himself off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <bungecorp.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attracts internet users for commercial gain by passing himself off as Complainant in email. Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BUNGE mark and hid his identity behind a WHOIS privacy service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the BUNGE mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2036787, registered February 11, 1997). The Panel finds Respondent’s <bungecorp.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUNGE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the word “corp”, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <bungecorp.com> domain name was registered on February 23, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its BUNGE mark had become very well-known. Next day, Respondent sent an email from [name]@bungecorp.com, displaying Complainant’s BUNGE mark in the signature block and purporting to enquire about the purchase of hardware for Complainant. The name used as the sender of the email is the actual name of Complainant’s Procurement Manager. The domain name resolves to Complainant’s <bunge.com> website.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <bungecorp.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. In particular, see Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”). See also United States Postal Service v. LUKA TAVZARASHVILI, FA1509001638117 (Forum Nov. 3, 2015) (finding that redirecting a confusingly similar domain name to a trademark owner’s website is not a bona fide use of the domain name).
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s BUNGE mark when Respondent registered the <bungecorp.com> domain name and that Respondent has used it for the purpose of fraudulently impersonating Complainant for commercial gain. This demonstrates both registration and use in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bungecorp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page