Bunge Limited, Bunge SA and Bunge Deutschland GmbH v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Hosting Concepts BV d/b/a Registrar.eu
Claim Number: FA2208002010207
Complainant is Bunge Limited, Bunge SA and Bunge Deutschland GmbH (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Hosting Concepts BV d/b/a Registrar.eu (“Respondent”), Netherlands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bunnge.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, 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 Forum electronically on August 29, 2022. Forum received payment on August 29, 2022.
On September 1, 2022, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bunnge.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 September 6, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 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@bunnge.com. Also on September 6, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
In the instant proceedings, there are three Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
In this case, Bunge SA and Bunge Deutschland GmbH are all indirectly wholly owned by their ultimate parent company Bunge Limited and are thus related companies. The Panel finds this to be a sufficient nexus for each to claim to have rights to the <bunnge.com> domain name listed in the Complaint. The Panel will refer to them collectively as “Complainant”.
A. Complainant
Complainant is global leader in oil for business customers and a supplier of choice for food manufacturers, bakeries, restaurants and foodservice operators. Complainant has rights in the BUNGE mark through registrations of the mark including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <bunnge.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bunnge.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BUNGE mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the typosquatted <bunnge.com> domain name in bad faith. The domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent used a privacy service and registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BUNGE mark.
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 registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,643,986 registered November 25, 2014). The Panel finds Respondent’s <bunnge.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the BUNGE mark in its entirety and adds the letter “n”, which does nothing 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.
(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 clearly typosquatted <bunnge.com> domain name was registered on August 12, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its BUNGE mark had become very well-known. It resolves to an inactive webpage.
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 <bunnge.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.
Complainant has established this element.
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
The <bunnge.com> domain name is clearly a deliberately typosquatted version of Complainant’s very well-known and distinctive BUNGE mark. There is no plausible explanation for the registration of the domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill of Complainant. See Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake City, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000).
Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).
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 <bunnge.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Bunge Limited.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: October 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page