Westmore · UDRP DecisionBakkavor-group.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <bakkavor-group.com> after finding that it was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BAKKAVÖR trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith. The record showed use of the domain name for fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant’s employees.
The timeline behind bakkavor-group.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 bakkavor-group.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a direct impersonation fact pattern in which a domain closely matching a pre-existing trademark was used as email infrastructure for fraud. The fraudulent-email evidence supported both the absence of rights or legitimate interests and the finding of registration and use in 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 Bakkavor Holdings Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Franck Ulcay Case No. D2018-2328 1. The Parties Complainant is Bakkavor Holdings Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Stevens and Bolton LLP, UK. Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Franck Ulcay of London, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bakkavor-group.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 12, 2018. On October 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 25, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 26, 2018. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 31, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 20, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 21, 2018. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 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 Complainant is an international food business and a leading provider of fresh prepared food in the UK. Founded in 1986, Complainant now operates in some of the largest food markets in the world in 39 different global locations. Complainant owns several registered trademarks, both in the European Union and internationally. These include European Union Trademark number 006037196, registered on May 15, 2008, and International Trademark number 1029998, registered on November 16, 2009, for the mark BAKKAVÖR. Complainant holds the domain name <bakkavor.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on March 12, 2018, and has been used to send fraudulent emails purporting to be from Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark registrations referenced above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and simply adds the word “group”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In fact, the record shows that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to impersonate employees of Complainant and defraud Internet users. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith By registering the disputed domain name, Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with Complainant’s trademark and business. The evidence of record indicates that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to send false and fraudulent emails purporting to be from individuals within Complainant’s business with the intention of damaging Complainant’s business and/or deriving a fraudulent financial benefit. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name <bakkavor-group.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: December 19, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bakkavor-group.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.