DECISION
SUEZ INTERNATIONAL v. Zacharias Cymbaluk
Claim Number: FA2511002187432
PARTIES
Complainant is SUEZ INTERNATIONAL ("Complainant"), represented by Jules Gaudin of ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is Zacharias Cymbaluk ("Respondent"), represented by Randall F. More of Randall More Holdings LTD, Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> (the "Domain Names"), registered with NameSilo, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 6, 2025. Forum received payment on November 6, 2025.
On November 6, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 November 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@suez.digital and postmaster@suezdigital.com. Also on November 12, 2025, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 29, 2025.
On December 29, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
With a history spanning over 160 years, Complainant, SUEZ INTERNATIONAL, is a global leader in providing water and waste management services to millions of people and businesses worldwide. The SUEZ mark was "born famous," originating with the formation of the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez in 1858. The mark is globally recognized as a symbol of excellence and innovation in environmental services. The Complainant's marks have also been widely and publicly utilized in Canada for years in connection with key public projects, solidifying their significant presence and goodwill in the Canadian market.
Complainant has been at the forefront of the digital transformation of the environmental sector. In 2022, Complainant established its Digital Solutions division in North America, dedicated to providing customers with advanced decision-support software. Complainant is a pioneer in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), deploying sophisticated algorithms to optimize water treatment processes, predict network failures, and reduce energy consumption. The Complainant's flagship digital solutions are used by utilities around the world. These platforms integrate real-time data from across the entire water cycle, enabling operators to detect leaks, monitor water quality, and manage critical infrastructure with unparalleled efficiency. This commitment to innovation ensures the SUEZ mark is not only a symbol of historical achievement but also of cutting-edge technology vital for a sustainable future.
The <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names. Respondent has registered domain names that are either identical to or combine Complainant's famous mark with the descriptive term "digital" and is using Complainant's mark without authorization to promote its own commercial digital marketing services. Such use is not bona fide as it inherently creates a likelihood of confusion. Respondent, "Zacharias Cymbaluk", cannot show that he has been commonly known by the Domain Names. Complainant never requested, allowed or authorized Respondent to register or hold the Domain Names, nor to use Complainants' SUEZ mark, or any other Complainant's trademarks, tradenames, domain names or any other identification element of Complainant or imitation thereof. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant's mark.
The <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Respondent's registration of Domain Names identical to a famous mark; subsequent offer to sell those Domain Names; demand for an exorbitant sum explicitly linked to Complainant's wealth; and operation of his actual business under a separate, non-infringing name (proving the infringing Domain Names are held only as a lever for payment), provides clear and compelling evidence of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
As to Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, Respondent's registration of the Domain Names constitutes a clear pattern of conduct aimed at preventing Complainant from reflecting Complainant's mark in corresponding domain names. Respondent did not merely register a single domain name. Instead, he strategically registered two distinct but commercially related variations of Complainant's mark.
As to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, by incorporating Complainant's mark into the Domain Names, Respondent intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship and affiliation of his services. Given the global fame and distinctiveness of Complainant's mark, Respondent was undoubtedly aware of it when he registered the Domain Names. His subsequent use of them confirms his intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill for his own commercial benefit.
Respondent's bad faith is further confirmed by his operation of a separate, non-infringing website at "www.cymb.ca" under the brand "CYMB Group." This website, which promotes the exact same digital marketing services, appears to be Respondent's actual, legitimate business identity. Respondent is engaged in a classic "bait-and-switch" scheme, using Complainant's mark to intentionally attract Internet users by confusion, only to funnel them to his own, unrelated "CYMB Group" brand. This conduct proves that the Domain Names are being held solely to create confusion for commercial gain and to leverage in demanding an exorbitant sum of money from Complainant.
Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by the provision of false and inaccurate WHOIS information for the Domain Names, which lists clearly false phone and fax numbers. More significantly, the postal address provided is not that of Respondent but rather the address for the University of Guelph, while the listed postal code is for a location in Florida, USA, not Canada. This deliberate attempt to obscure his true identity is further clear and compelling evidence of Respondent's bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent is a young Canadian entrepreneur who registered the Domain Names while a university student and residence advisor at the University of Guelph and later served on the University senate. Respondent operates a legitimate Ontario sole proprietorship under the registered business name SUEZ DIGITAL, providing digital marketing and website services, with a particular focus on dental clinics in Ontario, Canada. By the time Complainant's counsel first contacted Respondent in September 2024, Respondent had earned approximately CAD $20,000–$30,000 through SUEZ DIGITAL. Respondent has never provided services in water, waste management, or environmental utilities.
Respondent chose the name "Suez Digital" for metaphorical and personal reasons unrelated to Complainant. Respondent visited Egypt in high school and was fascinated by the efficiency of the Suez Canal, which allows ships to bypass the complex and risky journey around Africa. Respondent adopted the "Suez" metaphor to represent helping clients streamline and "bypass" the long, complicated journey of digital marketing. "Digital" reflects Respondent's lifelong immersion in technology and the services he provides. Respondent designed his own "S" logo and liked the personal resonance of "SUEZ" containing the letter "Z" (Zach), and the "ZEUS" reverse spelling (he has a Greek mythology interest and his family has been living in Athens, Greece since 2020).
At the time of adopting SUEZ DIGITAL and registering the Domain Names (May/July 2022), Respondent had never heard of SUEZ International and did not know of Complainant's business, logo, customers or operations.
The Domain Names were used for Respondent's business website and email, including <zach@suezdigital.com> and <zach@suez.digital>, and were never registered as part of a domain "portfolio," never parked for PPC advertising, and never listed for sale. Respondent has never received misdirected inquiries intended for Complainant and has never encountered actual confusion from clients.
Respondent first learned of Complainant only upon receiving counsel correspondence in September 2024. Respondent initially sought an amicable resolution and, under stress and limited resources, offered to transfer the Domain Names for out-of-pocket cost (approximately US$50.20), which Complainant later acknowledged it would reimburse. This conduct is inconsistent with cybersquatting. Respondent later felt pressured by heavy-handed settlement terms presented as non-negotiable. Complainant's initial demands required Respondent to stop using "SUEZ DIGITAL," change or close the Ontario business registration, change or delete social media handles, and transfer the Domain Names at no cost. Complainant's counsel later expressly acknowledged Respondent's efforts and actions taken in good faith. Respondent temporarily took down the site and began attempting to rebrand to "CYMB GROUP" out of fear and practical business risk, not as any admission of wrongdoing. Complainant's counsel also stated he had insisted on Respondent's good faith and the importance of Respondent's studies when seeking additional time.
Any later dollar figures discussed in 2025 were part of settlement discussions and reflected a valuation of a going-concern business asset, including the Domain Names, brand, goodwill, sunk costs, and rebrand costs, and not Respondent's original 2022 registration intent.
As to identity or confusing similarity, Respondent accepts Complainant's standing under Policy 4(a)(i) as a threshold matter, but denies all allegations of targeting, illegitimacy and bad faith.
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests under Policy 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(ii). Respondent has used the Domain Names in connection with a genuine offering of services since 2022, which is well before any notice of this dispute. Respondent's use is therefore bona fide under Policy 4(c)(i). Respondent is commonly known by the name SUEZ DIGITAL in the ordinary business sense with Ontario business registration, branding, invoices and client communications showing that Respondent has traded as SUEZ DIGITAL. The use of registrar privacy is common and does not negate being "commonly known." Respondent's use is a legitimate commercial business, not a sham "fair use" site. Respondent has not used the Complainant's logos, claimed affiliation, or attempted to mislead consumers.
Complainant has not demonstrated that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith or used in bad faith. Respondent registered and used the Domain Names for a genuine small business, not to target Complainant. The high web traffic to Complainant's sites does not demonstrate that Respondent encountered or targeted Complainant in 2022, when choosing a geographic metaphor coupled with his time spent in Suez while living in Africa, as the name for dental marketing services in Ontario. Respondent denies the allegation that registration was "with the Complainant specifically in mind." Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant in 2022. Complainant offers no evidence of targeting besides conjecture.
Respondent denies the Domain Names were registered primarily to sell to Complainant. Respondent registered them in 2022 to operate SUEZ DIGITAL and did so for years. The facts here show the opposite of cybersquatting: Respondent built and operated a real business, used the Domain Names for email and services, and initially offered cost-based transfer under pressure. Respondent did not have any intention at any time to solicit Complainant for anything, certainly not to sell the Domain Names. It was Complainant who initiated the communications. Respondent attempted to resolve the issue amicably and later, with new advice, disputed the adequacy and terms of Complainant's offers.
Respondent's temporary use of CYMB GROUP occurred only after Complainant's counsel demanded that Respondent stop using SUEZ DIGITAL, change or close the Ontario sole proprietorship, change social media handles, and transfer the Domain Names at no cost. The CYMB GROUP branding was a mitigation step taken under pressure to avoid business interruption while attempting to comply and resolve the matter. Complainant's counsel later acknowledged Respondent's efforts and actions taken in good faith.
The reactivation of the website was undertaken so that Respondent would not lose any momentum that might have otherwise been gained by his website… all coupled with the belief that any understanding with Suez International seemed to be going nowhere.
Respondent denies that the WHOIS information is evidence of bad faith. The Domain Names were registered through NameSilo using the registrar's default WHOIS privacy service, which automatically displays proxy contact data. The use of WHOIS privacy is lawful, common, and permitted under ICANN policy, and does not indicate bad faith. Respondent's underlying registrant account information held by the registrar, including name and email address, was accurate and functional. Respondent was reachable and promptly responded to Complainant's correspondence in September 2024. At the time of registration and for a period thereafter, Respondent was a university student, residence advisor, teaching assistant, and senator at the University of Guelph, and it was common for him to use that address across multiple online accounts. Any formatting inconsistencies in the public WHOIS record, including the appearance of a U.S. ZIP code, are attributable to registrar or privacy-service formatting and not to any deliberate misrepresentation. Section 3.6 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 concerns intentional use of false contact details to support abusive domain name conduct, which is not present here. Respondent operated a bona fide business and did not evade contact.
Respondent requests a finding of RDNH because the Complaint attempts to stretch the UDRP, which is intended for clear cybersquatting, into a mechanism to seize a small Canadian business's brand and domains, despite evidence of bona fide use and an early cost-based transfer offer. Complainant repeatedly relies on speculation ("inconceivable" Respondent was unaware), instead of evidence of targeting at registration, and mischaracterizes Respondent's temporary rebrand under pressure as proof of bad faith. At a minimum, the Panel should recognize this as an overreaching Complaint. The Complaint also contains basic factual inaccuracies, including an incorrect IANA registrar identification number, further illustrating the lack of care with which allegations of bad faith were asserted.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that it has rights in numerous registrations of the mark SUEZ, including USPTO Registration No. 5,102,488, registered on December 20, 2016 for inter alia "Chemical products for the treatment of water and liquid and solid waste, namely, flocculants, coagulants, poly-electrolites, reagents for non-medical purposes", in International Class 1.
The Panel finds Respondent's <suez.digital> domain name to be identical and his <suezdigital.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SUEZ mark, the latter only differing by the addition of the word "digital", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential ".digital" and ".com" generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(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 <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names were registered respectively on July 26, 2022 and May 21, 2022, several years after the registration of Complainant's SUEZ mark. The Domain Names both resolve to the website at "www.suezdigital.com", headed "$ SUEZ DIGITAL", promoting "DIGITAL EVOLUTION. Delivering next-gen internet strategy for market domination" and "Our Mission We transform businesses into industry digital leaders. Leveraging the latest A.I. technology, we drive our clients to achieve unparalleled profitability, efficiency, and reach in the digital landscape." Respondent is shown as the Founder.
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 Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
The Panel notes that, although registered by Complainant as a trademark, SUEZ is well-known as the name of a city in Egypt; the name of the Gulf of Suez; and the name of the Suez Canal.
Respondent has produced copies of invoices and screenshots of his website which show that, since at least January 16, 2023, Respondent has provided digital consulting services under the Suez Digital name. Respondent registered the business name SUEZ DIGITAL in Ontario (Business Identification Number 1000563091) on June 9, 2023. Respondent's services under that business name are directed primarily to dentists' clinics.
These circumstances satisfy the Panel that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of services and that Respondent, as a business, has been commonly known by the Domain Names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has shown that he does have rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> domain names.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its SUEZ mark when Respondent registered the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> Domain Names and that he registered and is using them in good faith.
As to Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, the correspondence between the parties (Complaint Appendix 7) makes clear that Respondent did not acquire the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the registrations to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Names.
As to Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel does not accept that Respondent's registration of the Domain Names constitutes a pattern of conduct aimed at preventing Complainant from reflecting Complainant's mark in corresponding domain names.
As to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Panel does not accept that Respondent was aware of Complainant's mark when he registered the Domain Names; nor that Respondent intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship and affiliation of his services; nor that his subsequent use of the Domain Names establishes intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill for his own commercial benefit.
As to Respondent's operation of a separate website at "www.cymb.ca" under the brand "CYMB Group", the Panel accepts Respondent's Declaration that after receiving Complainant's lawyer's letter in September 2024, Respondent felt intimidated and pressured, and temporarily took his website down and attempted to rebrand to reduce conflict.
Finally, the Panel does not accept that, in the circumstances of this case, any discrepancies in the public WHOIS record indicate bad faith on the part of Respondent.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
The correspondence between the parties (Complaint Appendix 7) began on September 23, 2024 with a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent from Complainant's Counsel. On September 30, 2024, Respondent committed to resolving the matter amicably and asked Complainant to consider reimbursing the costs of the domain name registrations that he would be transferring. Asked what those costs would be, Respondent stated on October 18, 2024 that the total cost for both Domain Names would be USD 50.20.
On June 25, 2025, Complainant's Counsel offered CAD 1,500 for the Domain Names and the execution of a contractual undertaking. On July 18, 2025, Respondent's representative replied:
"In consulting and conferring with professionals who are more fully engaged and experienced in such cases, for the purpose of securing existing internet domain entities, a range of $18,000 to $100,000 U.S. is generally considered reasonable, depending, of course, on various factors. Significant and important variables in such cases include the scale of the operation, its international presence, its annual sales, and the value of the global brand.
Somewhat surprisingly, your client's most recent offer does not seem to reflect either the real value or the importance of either Suez International or Suez Digital. For an organization with the stature and history of your client, having annual sales of $10 billion, a reasonably expected value would be within the range noted above.
I believe, assuming no delays, at this time, that Mr. Cymbaluk would surrender his ownership and all rights with an amount in that range."
The Complaint submitted:
"As detailed in the correspondence in Appendix 7 after the Complainant contacted the Respondent about his infringing use, the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Names for a price far exceeding any documented out-of-pocket costs. Specifically, the Respondent dismissed the Complainant's initial offer and stated that he expected a payment in the range of $18,000 to $100,000 USD to consider a transfer. The Respondent's justification for this exorbitant demand is a direct admission of his bad faith intent."
Complainant and its Counsel were aware in October, 2024 of Respondent's willingness to transfer the Domain Names to Complainant for USD 50.20 for the reimbursement of the costs related to the Domain Names and were aware that such willingness was inconsistent with the Domain Names having been registered primarily for the purpose set out in Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Despite that knowledge, Complainant and its Counsel chose to make the above submission.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <suez.digital> and <suezdigital.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: January 1, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page