Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2010-2000

Basfgroup.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <basfgroup.com> without making findings under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. The listed Respondent stated that the Domain Name had been registered in his name without his knowledge or consent, disclaimed any interest in it, and consented to transfer. The Panel found that he was an innocent party and that the circumstances appeared to involve another person using his identity to conceal the registration and capitalize on a famous trademark. Communications from a person identifying himself as “Bai” were disregarded because the Panel found that person was not the registrant.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-01-11
Panelist(s)
Limbury, Alan L.
Complainant
BASF SE
Respondent
Jim Welsh
Disputed domain(s)
basfgroup.com
Citation weightCited by 9 later decisions · relies on 1 authority
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind basfgroup.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind basfgroup.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of basfgroup.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

This case illustrates a consent-transfer disposition where the registrar-listed respondent was found to be an innocent person whose identity had apparently been used by another actor. The Panel ordered transfer while deliberately avoiding findings against that innocent respondent under the three substantive UDRP elements.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarnot_reached
Rights or legitimate interestsnot_reached
Registered and used in bad faithnot_reached

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2011-01-11
Panel
Limbury, Alan L.
Full decision
4 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BASF SE v. Jim Welsh Case No. D2010-2000 1. The Parties The Complainant is BASF SE of Ludwigshafen, Germany, represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP, Germany. The Respondent is Jim Welsh of Saint Helena, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <basfgroup.com> (“the Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 22, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 3, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 23, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 29, 2010. The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury, as the sole panelist in this matter on January 10, 2011. 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, together with numerous subsidiaries, is the largest chemical company in the world. It has registered the trademark BASF throughout the world including, on August 20, 1987 in Germany, under No. IR00521841. The Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2010 in the name of Respondent, without his knowledge or consent. Next day the Complainant received an email purporting to be from “Jim, BasfGroup.com” offering to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. As of at least November 18, 2010 the Domain Name both resolved to a website showing sponsored links, with a statement that it may be for sale, and was offered for sale on the “www.sedo.co.uk” website. The Respondent agrees that he has no interest in the Domain Name and has consented to its transfer to the Complainant but, since the Domain Name was not in fact registered by him, he has no access to the account to enable the transfer. Accordingly this matter has been referred to the Panel for decision. Following the commencement of this Administrative Proceeding, the Center received email communications from “Bai”, claiming to be the owner of the Domain Name and to have registered it on October 30, 2010 for a games project, and that “BASF” is the abbreviation of “BaShiFen”, an Asian poker. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant says the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BASF trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent As mentioned, the Respondent, in his informal communications, agrees that he has no interest in the Domain Name, which was not registered by him or with his consent, and he agrees to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings This appears to be a case of a person registering the Domain Name in the name of the Respondent in order to hide his or her identity and for the purpose of cashing in on a famous trademark. The Panel disregards the communications from “Bai” having found that said person is not the registrant of the Domain Name. The Respondent is an innocent party who has, very properly, consented to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. In the circumstances of this case, an order for transfer should be made and, as in Jeffrey Gorman (Jeff Gorman) v. Cocktails For a Cause , WIPO Case No. D2007-1029 , the Panel concludes that it is inappropriate to make findings under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the domain name, <basfgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Alan L. Limbury Sole Panelist Dated: January 11, 2011

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around basfgroup.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,934 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions.

LinkedIn
Insights
Briefs
Who Owns
Westmore
Research
Services
UDRP
Support
Buyer-side only· Escrow-protected· NDA on request

© 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

A note on privacy

Westmore uses a few essential cookies to keep this site secure and running smoothly. Nothing about your identity or interest is ever sold or shared.