Westmore · UDRP DecisionEssjty.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <essjty.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the ESSITY trademark because it replaced the letter “i” with the visually similar letter “j”. The Respondent had used the Domain Name for an email impersonating a senior corporate officer and seeking assistance with an invoice payment. The Panel held that this deceptive use could not confer rights or legitimate interests and established registration and use in bad faith.
The timeline behind essjty.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 essjty.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates that a domain need not host an active website to support a UDRP transfer. A minimally altered, lookalike version of a trademark used for targeted corporate impersonation by email can establish confusing similarity, negate rights or legitimate interests, and demonstrate bad-faith registration and use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Packy Phim, Nessssss Case No. D2018-0346 1. The Parties The Complainant is Essity Hygiene and Health AB of Göteborg, Sweden, represented by Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Packy Phim, Nessssss of Westminster, Colorado, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name, <essjty.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 15, 2018. On February 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 20, 2018, the Registrar 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” 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 February 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 15, 2018. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2018. 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 Swedish corporation engaged in the development, production and sale of healthcare products. Until June 15, 2017 it formed part of the SCA Group, headquartered in Sweden, but on that date the business of the SCA Group was divided and the Complainant commenced business as a separate corporation under its current name. The division of the business of the SCA Group was announced to the public on April 5, 2017. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations of marks comprising or including its trading name “Essity” including i.a. International trade mark registration for ESSITY (registration number 1366140), registered on January 26, 2017. The Domain Name was registered on November 26, 2017. It is not connected to an active webpage, but on November 28, 2017 it was used for an email address. The email as evidenced by the Complainant purported to come from the Chief Financial Officer of the Complainant’s ultimate parent company, and was addressed to “[redacted]@essity.com”, the redacted name being the name of one of the Complainant’s business managers and <essity.com> being a domain name of the Complainant. The email read: “Hi [redacted], How are you doing? Have you got a minute please? We need to make a payment for an invoice Magnus Groth needs us to pay for today. I’d appreciate it if you can handle it. Let me know when you get this and also available so I can pass across further information to you. Thank you. Best regards, [redacted]” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name comprises the term “essjty” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain identifier, which may be ignored for the purpose of this assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The term “essjty” differs from the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark by one letter (“j”) and one which is very similar to the “i” it replaces. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests and D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The background facts set out in Section 4 above, which are unchallenged by the Respondent, demonstrate that the Respondent selected the Domain Name for the very reason that the Respondent used it on November 28, 2017, namely to deceive a member of the Complainant’s staff into believing that the Respondent’s email was in fact from the Complainant’s Chief Financial Officer. On no basis could such a use give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Moreover, registration of a confusingly similar domain name for such a purpose must lead to a finding of registration and use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel duly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used 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, <essjty.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Tony Willoughby Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around essjty.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore 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.