WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lonza Ltd. v. Shabnam Golbouy Daghdari

Case No. DIR2020-0015

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lonza Ltd., Switzerland, represented Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., United States of America.

The Respondent is Shabnam Golbouy Daghdari, Islamic Republic of Iran.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lonzagroup.ir> is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2020. On August 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 2020, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 26, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. On August 28, 2020, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 2020. 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 part of the Lonza Group Ltd operating in the pharmaceutical, biotech and specialty ingredients markets with revenues of over USD 2.5 billion in 2019 in the United States of America alone.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the mark LONZA in well over 30 countries for a variety of goods and services, including the United States of America trademark registration No. 956,300 registered on April 3, 1973.

The Complainant operates a website at “www.lonza.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 14, 2020 and resolves to a website in Persian language pretending to be an authorized distributor or seller of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name includes only the addition of the generic and/or descriptive term “group” and the “.ir” country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) to the Complainant’s LONZA trademark and does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The terms “Lonza Group” or “Lonza” are not applied for or registered trademarks by the Respondent. The Complainant has not licensed, otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark, or to apply for any confusingly similar domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s product listings, image, trademarks and incorporation of links to the Complainant’s official websites at “www.lonza.com” and “www.bioscience.lonza.com” show that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark and company, further evidencing the Respondent’s bad faith. The Respondent fraudulently holding itself out to be an authorized distributor or seller of the Complainant’s products when it is not.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark.

The ccTLD “.ir” in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s LONZA trademark adding the descriptive term “group”, which does not preclude the confusing similarity. Under similar circumstances previous panels also confirmed the confusing similarity (see, e.g., Adobe Inc. v. Amin Mohammadsalehi, Uranos, WIPO Case No. DIR2020-0006).

Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides for a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use of the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.

The Panel finds that there is no evidence of the existence of any of those circumstances to demonstrate the rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but instead did not reply.

Finally, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name linked to the website at the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied association or affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark, where there is none.

Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The nature of the website at the disputed domain name confirms the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, which confirms the bad faith (see e.g. Price Costco International, Inc. v. Simin Kalaye Soren, WIPO Case No. DIR2019-0009).

According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. In this case, the disputed domain name is resolving to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and falsely pretending to be an authorized distributor or seller of the Complainant to intentionally attract Internet users by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the website and its products. The Panel finds the above confirms the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.
The Respondent ignored its possibility to comment on the contrary and provide any good explanations to prove its good faith while registering and using the disputed domain name.

Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 disputed domain name <lonzagroup.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: September 22, 2020