DECISION

 

Huntsman International LLC v. William Johnson / Bills Construction inc

Claim Number: FA2607002230735

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Huntsman International LLC ("Complainant"), represented by John C. Cain of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is William Johnson / Bills Construction inc ("Respondent"), Rhode Island, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lhuntsman.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 2, 2026; Forum received payment on July 2, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lhuntsman.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 July 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 29, 2026 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@lhuntsman.com. Also on July 9, 2026, 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 July 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Huntsman International, LLC and its subsidiary companies, including Huntsman Building Solutions (USA) LLC are associated with a wide range of innovative products and solutions in the chemicals industry. For over 50 years, Huntsman has provided products to a diverse range of consumers and industrial end users globally, including but not limited to the insulation, adhesives, consumer products, packaging, power generation, oil and gas, fuels, lubricants, boating, aerospace, automotive, transportation, building, construction, energy, and footwear industry consumers. Headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, Huntsman employs over 7,000 people and had revenues in 2022 of over $8 billion.

 

Consistent with its extensive use and common law rights in the HUNTSMAN marks, Huntsman is the owner of numerous trademark registrations globally and including registrations with the USPTO.

 

Complainant recently became aware of Respondent's registration of the domain name <lhuntsman.com> because of an attempted email scam. targeting one of Complainant's customers. There, Respondent posed as genuine Huntsman Building Solutions employees using the email domain <lhuntsman.com> to coerce Complainant's customer to send direct wire payments to Respondent's own fraudulent bank account. Respondent contacted Complainant customer from the email address chandra_griffin@lhuntsman.com, posing as Chandra Griffin, a Credit Analyst for Huntsman Building Solutions. Ostensibly copied in these email exchanges were other purported Huntsman employees, including "carolyn_dean@lhuntsman.com," "clara_escobar@lhuntsman.com," and "sean_kimble@lhuntsman.com," all using the infringing lhuntsman.com email domain.

 

On June 25, 2026, Respondent registered the domain name <lhuntsman.com>. The ICANN WHOIS lookup confirms the domain was created on June 25, 2026, the very same day that the fraudulent emails were sent to Huntsman's customer. As of July 1, 2026, the at-issue domain name resolves to a generic "Under Construction" page hosted by Network Solutions. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name for the sole purpose of sending fraudulent emails in which the sender poses as Huntsman employees to defraud Huntsman's customers.

 

Respondent was initially hidden behind a privacy domain service. After this complaint was served on the listed Registrar for the disputed domain, Respondent was revealed to be William Johnson / Bills Construction inc.

 

The domain name <lhuntsman.com> is identical and confusingly similar to the HUNTSMAN marks. The domain name <lhuntsman.com> is a clear example of typosquatting. Here, Respondent has simply added the letter "l" before Complainant's HUNTSMAN mark to create the confusingly similar domain name <lhuntsman.com>. This minor addition is designed to deceive recipients who may not notice the subtle difference at a quick glance, particularly when the domain is used in email addresses. The at-issue domain name incorporates the HUNTSMAN word mark in its entirety, with only the addition of a single letter "l" preceding the mark. The addition of a single extraneous letter does not distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's HUNTSMAN mark. A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name.

 

Huntsman owns rights in the mark HUNTSMAN and in various HUNTSMAN-formative marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests concerning the disputed domain name. Before any notice of this dispute, Respondent did not use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name "in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services." UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i). The at-issue domain name resolves to a generic "Under Construction" webpage hosted by Network Solutions, and there is no evidence that Respondent has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose. Passively holding a domain name that resolves to an inactive or placeholder site does not constitute bona fide use or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. The registrant is identified as William Johnson / Bills Construction inc. There is no indication that William Johnson or Bills Construction inc is known as "Huntsman" or "Lhuntsman." WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not commonly known as "Huntsman" or "Lhuntsman" because Respondent does not have authorization to use the HUNTSMAN marks. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the HUNTSMAN marks for any purpose, let alone for the purpose of registering a domain name and impersonating Complainant's legitimate employees in phishing attempts. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. In fact, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in an email phishing attempt is blatantly an attempt to mislead and confuse Complainant's customers and defraud them of substantial funds. The use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing, impersonation, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Respondent is trading on the goodwill associated with the HUNTSMAN marks and creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's email address by Complainant.

 

Respondent's registration and use of <lhuntsman.com> has been in bad faith under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant's 2000 U.S. registration of its HUNTSMAN mark issued more than 26 years before Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in 2026. Complainant's numerous registrations provided Respondent with constructive notice of Complainant  rights in the HUNTSMAN marks. Even aside from the U.S. registrations, the HUNTSMAN marks are extensively advertised and well-known in the chemicals industry. Huntsman employees use email domains including huntsman.com and huntsmanbuilds.com in day-to-day business activities and correspondence with customers. Respondent used the disputed domain name in an email phishing scheme attempting to swindle $10,000 from a Huntsman customer. Respondent posed as Chandra Griffin, a Huntsman Building Solutions Credit Analyst, and provided fraudulent wiring instructions to redirect payment to a "First Tech Federal Credit Union" account controlled by Respondent. The use of the at-issue domain name to facilitate fraud shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. The at-issue domain name is a clear case of typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors, misspellings, or minor alterations into a trademark and then uses the resulting 10 string in a domain name. The practice also encompasses the addition of letters to a trademark. The fact that the domain name resolves to a generic "Under Construction" webpage is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The domain was never used for any legitimate purpose - only for the email phishing scheme. Respondent initially registered the at-issue domain name through Perfect Privacy, LLC, a privacy service provider, to conceal its true identity. Although the Respondent's identity has now been disclosed as William Johnson / Bills Construction inc through this proceeding, the initial use of a privacy service to conceal the registrant's identity, combined with the use of the domain in a phishing scheme, is strong evidence of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the HUNTSMAN marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in its HUNTSMAN marks.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email messages whereby Respondent passes itself off as an employee of Complainant and thereby attempts to swindle funds from third parties.

 

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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 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.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Any of Complainant's trademark registrations for its HUNTSMAN marks with the USPTO or any other bona fide trademark agency worldwide demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <lhuntsman.com> domain name consists of Complainant's HUNTSMAN mark prefixed with the letter "l" which may be characterized as a mistyping or misspelling of HUNTSMAN, with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the Complainant's trademark from Respondent's domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <lhuntsman.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for <lhuntsman.com> leads to finding the domain name's registrant is "William Johnson / Bills Construction inc." and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <lhuntsman.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <lhuntsman.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses email hosted by the <lhuntsman.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant's employee to facilitate Respondent's swindling of funds from Complainant's customers. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to host fraudulent email indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also, AbbVie Inc. v. Earl Vought FA  2012504 (Forum, Oct. 17, 2022) (finding the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). 

 

Respondent's <lhuntsman.com> domain name also fails to address an active website. Passively holding an at-issue domain name generally suggests that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in such domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). However, in the instant case the at-issue domain name is technically active since it is being used to host email, an otherwise legitimate function for a domain name that in itself fails to connote any ill intent on the part of a domain name's registrant.

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <lhuntsman.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

First, Respondent uses the at-issue confusingly similar domain name to host email messages impersonating an employee of Complainant to attempt to trick Complainant's customers into sending funds due Complainant to Respondent's account. Respondent's use of its <lhuntsman.com> domain name thus disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See, Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent's use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ("Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.")

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark or other identifying mark such as a domain name and then registers the resulting string as part of a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark, or as in the instant case will inadvertently mistake Respondent's fraudulent domain name for the official domain name of its target mark. Here, Respondent's at-issue domain name is near identical to Complainant's official email domain name. Upon reading <lhuntsman.com> in an email header some internet users may be and likely have been tricked into believing it is Complainant's authentic email and that they are dealing with Complainant when they are in fact dealing with Respondent. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's mark when it registered <lhuntsman.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant trademark, from the overt misspelling of Complainant's official domain name within <lhuntsman.com>, and from the fact that Respondent's sham email pretends to be from actual employees of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's superior rights in HUNTSMAN further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2026