DECISION

 

The Chemours Company v. he jxing

Claim Number: FA2606002226892

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Chemours Company ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Brandon M. Ress of Pirkey Barber PLLC, United States. Respondent is he jxing ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chemoursusa.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2026; Forum received payment on June 12, 2026.

 

On June 15, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <chemoursusa.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 June 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@chemoursusa.com. Also on June 16, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a manufacturer of industrial and specialty chemical products. Complainant has used CHEMOURS in connection with its products for more than a decade. Complainant manufactures a number of performance chemicals including resins, coatings, and fluoropolymer finishes, under TEFLON and other well-known marks, among a wide variety of other goods. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for CHEMOURS in standard character form and for a related design mark.

 

The disputed domain name <chemoursusa.com> was registered in May 2026. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently displays the CHEMOURS mark and identifies its operator as "Chemours" in the copyright statement and elsewhere. The website offers or purports to offer "Chemours Fluoropolymer Solutions for Critical Industrial Surfaces," including "PTFE resin, Teflon coating, and fluoropolymer finish programs." The website displays no contact information, instead providing a form that includes prompts for the user's name, email address, and other information. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <chemoursusa.com> is confusingly similar to its CHEMOURS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <chemoursusa.com> incorporates Complainant's registered CHEMOURS trademark, adding the geographic term "USA" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Fankwe Yimga / Bride Spark, FA 2217909 (Forum May 20, 2026) (finding <skyepeptidesusa.com> confusingly similar to SKYE PEPTIDES); Georgia-Pacific LLC & GPCP IP Holdings LLC v. he jxing, FA 2212921 (Forum Apr. 23, 2026) (finding <georgiapacificus.com> confusingly similar to GEORGIA-PACIFIC); ECOENCLOSE INC. v. he jxing, FA 2184937 (Forum Nov. 19, 2025) (finding <ecoencloseus.com> confusingly similar to ECOENCLOSE); Chemours Co. v. weev seez, D2023-4770 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2024) (finding <chemoursus.com> confusingly similar to CHEMOURS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing products and likely supports other fraudulent activity. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Fankwe Yimga / Bride Spark, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Georgia-Pacific LLC & GPCP IP Holdings LLC v. he jxing, supra (same); ECOENCLOSE INC. v. he jxing, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing products and likely supports other fraudulent activity. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Skye Research, LLC v. Fankwe Yimga / Bride Spark, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Georgia-Pacific LLC & GPCP IP Holdings LLC v. he jxing, supra (same); ECOENCLOSE INC. v. he jxing, supra (same). The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's history of similar conduct involving other domain names and trademarks, as evidenced by several adverse decisions in other proceedings under the Policy. See APOGEE SFS US, LLC v. he jxing, FA 2222829 (Forum June 17, 2026) (noting Respondent's pattern of bad faith). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <chemoursusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 7, 2026