Westmore · UDRP DecisionBunzlmail.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <bunzlmail.com> after finding that it was confusingly similar to the BUNZL trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Domain Name had been registered and used in bad faith. The documented use of the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails purporting to come from individuals within the Bunzl Group was central to the findings on the second and third UDRP elements.
The timeline behind bunzlmail.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates that a domain name need not host an active website to support transfer where it is being used as infrastructure for fraudulent email. The combination of the distinctive BUNZL mark with “mail” reinforced the email-impersonation context, while the documented fraudulent messages drove the findings on both legitimate interests and bad faith.
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 Bunzl UK Limited v. Godwin Olopa Case No. D2018-0517 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bunzl UK Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Stevens & Bolton, LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Godwin Olopa of Kassel, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bunzlmail.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 9, 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 March 15, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2018. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 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 part of the multinational Bunzl group of companies. The Bunzl Group specializes in the distribution and outsourcing of non-food consumables for the foodservice, grocery, cleaning and hygiene, safety, retail, and healthcare industries. It has offices worldwide with a presence in 30 countries and its headquarters in London. The Bunzl Group established its first operation in London in 1938 and was listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1957. Bunzl plc is a Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 company and the Bunzl Group has grown to employ over 16,000 employees. In 2016 it reported revenue of over GBP 7 billion. The Bunzl Group owns various registered United Kingdom and European trademarks, including European Union trademark number 004999074 for BUNZL, registered on June 27, 2007. In addition, the Complainant has significant goodwill and reputation in the name “Bunzl”. The Bunzl Group owns several domain names, for example <bunzl.com>, <bunzlcard.com>, <bunzlchs.com>, <bunzlcatering.co.uk>, <bunzlhealthcare.co.uk>, and <bunzldistribution.com>. According to the Registrar, the Respondent registered the Domain Name on March 1, 2018. The Domain Name resolves, at the time of the drafting this Decision, to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides trademark registrations and argues that it has both registered and unregistered rights in BUNZL. The Complainant argues that the additional “mail” used in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Hence, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Complainant documents that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group. As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that given the strength of the Complainant’s rights in the mark BUNZL and the fact that the word has no recognized meaning other than to refer to the Complainant, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. As documented, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group. By using the Domain Name this way, the Respondent has acted intentionally to damage the Complainant’s business and / or to derive fraudulent financial gain. Moreover, the Respondent is blocking the Complainant from using the Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark BUNZL. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of “mail” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. It is unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Name without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. As documented by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to send false / fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within the Bunzl Group. This is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the Respondent’s actions, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails is clear evidence of both bad faith registration and use. The bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name <bunzlmail.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: April 30, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bunzlmail.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.