WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Beth McKechnie

Case No. D2016-1511

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. of Pully, Switzerland, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America / Beth McKechnie of Attleboro, Massachusetts, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tetralval.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 26, 2016. On July 26, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 28, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 2, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, an email was received from the Respondent by the Center.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 4, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 24, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Center informed the parties that it would proceed with panel appointment.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Swiss corporation which is part of the Tetra Laval Group that comprises three industry groups: Tetra Pak, DeLaval and Sidel Group. They are all focused on technologies for the efficient production, processing and packaging of food. The Tetra Pak Group was founded in 1947 and the DeLaval Group in 1883.

The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations around the world in respect of the word mark TETRA LAVAL, including Germany trademark number 2083744 registered on November 4, 1994, Canada trademark number 502113 registered on October 9, 1998 and France trademark number 93472472 registered on November 26, 1993.

The Domain Name was registered on July 24, 2016. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website, but has been used to send emails from the address […]@tetralval.com, including one to an employee at Tetra Laval International, purporting to come from the President of Tetra Laval International, Martin Zedgitt. This appears to be an attempted Chief Executive Fraud by which an employee is induced to make a fraudulent payment believing the instructions to come from a senior executive of the company.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its TETRA LAVAL trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a formal reply to the Complainant's contentions, but sent an obscene email to the Center on July 28, 2016 stating "f*** you all a** h***, d**k riders".

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the trademark TETRA LAVAL, both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations around the world and as a result of its goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the TETRA LAVAL mark over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's mark save for the omission of the letter "a". In the Panel's view, this amounts to classic "typosquatting" intended to take advantage of Internet users not noticing the missing letter, and intended to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The use of the Domain Name for email addresses intended to deceive recipients into believing that emails were sent from a legitimate account of the Complainant could not possibly demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint save for its obscene email to the Center and has accordingly failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the circumstances, the Panel considers it inconceivable that the Respondent did not have the Complainant and its rights in the TETRA LAVAL mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The registration and subsequent use of the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails of the kind described above amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <tetralval.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: September 17, 2016