Westmore · UDRP DecisionVitolfinancing.ltd
The Panel ordered transfer of <vitolfinancing.ltd>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VITOL mark because it incorporated the mark in full and added only the non-distinctive word “financing.” Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the Domain Name was used for a website impersonating Complainant rather than for a bona fide offering or legitimate fair use. The Panel also found registration and use in bad faith based on the prior VITOL rights, the website’s prominent use of Complainant’s marks and logos, and the resulting false impression of affiliation with Complainant.
The timeline behind vitolfinancing.ltd
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 vitolfinancing.ltd — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining an entire trademark with a business-related, non-distinctive word can create both confusing similarity and an implied-affiliation risk. The associated impersonation website was especially significant because the same evidence supported the findings on legitimate interests, knowledge at registration, and bad-faith 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 Vitol Holding B.V. v. jenny maria Case No. D2021-1786 1. The Parties Complainant is Vitol Holding B.V., Netherlands, represented by NLO Shieldmark B. V., Netherlands. Respondent is jenny maria, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Domain Name <vitolfinancing.ltd> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2021. On June 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 7, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 15, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 17, 2021. 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 June 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 8, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 15, 2021. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on July 23, 2021. 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’s group is active in energy and commodities, trading and distributing energy. It is the owner of VITOL trademarks, including the European Union trademark registration no. 017865708, VITOL (word), filed on February 26, 2018 and registered on January 24, 2019 for goods and services in international classes 1, 4, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42 and the United States of America trademark registration no. 4442614, VITOL (word), filed on December 27, 2012 and registered on December 3, 2013, for goods and services in international classes 1, 4, 35, 36 and 39. The Domain Name was registered on April 27, 2021 and at the time of filing of the Complaint led to a website (“the Website”) mimicking the official website of Complainant, appearing to offer services and sell goods under Complainant’s mark and prominently displaying Complainant’s VITOL trademarks and logos. The Domain Name currently resolves to an identical or similar website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the 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 in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s VITOL trademark in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity ( Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr. , WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 ). The addition of the word “financing” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as it is a non distinctive term and the VITOL trademark remains clearly recognizable (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.8). The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.ltd” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons ( Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn , WIPO Case No. D2017-0275 ; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik , WIPO Case No. D2002-0122 ). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VITOL trademark. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use, or has not used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name is used to host the Website to impersonate Complainant and attempt to mislead consumers into thinking that the goods and services purportedly offered on the Website originate from Complainant. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods nor a legitimate interest of Respondent ( Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine , WIPO Case No. D2015-0502 ). In addition, the nature of the Domain Name, comprising Complainant’s trademark in its entirety in combination with the non-distinctive term “financing”, carries a risk of implied affiliation ( WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1). The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the VITOL mark had been used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name ( Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2014-1754 ; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net , WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 ). Respondent should have known about Complainant’s rights, as such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search and also due to Complainant’s nature of business, provided also online, namely online sales (see Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC , WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 ; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc ., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462 ). Furthermore, the content of the Website gives the impression that it originates from Complainant, prominently displaying VITOL trademarks and logos of Complainant, thereby giving the false impression that the Website emanates from Complainant’ s group. This further supports registration in bad faith reinforcing the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users are likely to consider the Domain Name as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant ( WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4). The above further indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2015-0403 ) . Furthermore, Respondent could have conducted a trademark search and should have found Complainant’s prior registrations in respect of VITOL ( Citrix Online LLC v. Ramalinga Reddy Sanikommu Venkata , WIPO Case No. D2012-1338 ). As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name is employed to host a Website which appears falsely to be that of Complainant. Finally, the Domain Name has been operated by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business. This further supports the finding of bad faith use ( Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, supra ; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Priscilla Quaiotti Passos , WIPO Case No. D2011-0388 and WIPO Overview 3.0 , sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1). Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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, <vitolfinancing.ltd> be transferred to Complainant. Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: August 6, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around vitolfinancing.ltd
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.