Westmore · UDRP DecisionProveedorescollahuasi.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <proveedorescollahuasi.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COLLAHUASI mark because the addition of the Spanish descriptive term “proveedores” did not prevent recognition of the mark. The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith registration and use were established by the domain’s composition, its use to mislead the Complainant’s suppliers and send fraudulent emails, and the Panel’s finding that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s widely known mark. The published decision redacted the Respondent’s name because the listed identity appeared to have been used without consent.
The timeline behind proveedorescollahuasi.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 proveedorescollahuasi.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a supplier-impersonation pattern in which a trademark is combined with a term identifying a commercially sensitive audience. The domain’s wording was not merely insufficient to avoid confusing similarity; it also supported the Panel’s conclusion that the registration was designed to appear sponsored by the Complainant and attract its suppliers. Prior redirection to the genuine website and fraudulent email use provided concrete evidence connecting the domain’s composition to abusive conduct.
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 Compañía Minera Doña Inés de Collahuasi SCM v. Name Redacted Case No. D2021-2010 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compañía Minera Doña Inés de Collahuasi SCM, Chile, represented by Sargent & Krahn Procuradores Internacionales de Patentes y Marcas Ltda., Chile. The Respondent is Name Redacted 1 . 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <proveedorescollahuasi.com> 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 June 24, 2021. On June 25, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 26, 2021, 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 July 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 26, 2021. The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on August 2, 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 The Complainant, COMPAÑIA MINERA DOÑA INES DE COLLAHUASI SCM, a. k. a. COLLAHUASI asserts that it is a copper mining company with operations located in the altiplanic zone of the Tarapacá region in Chile. It manages the open-pit mining operation “Minera Doña Inés de COLLAHUASI”, which as of December 2015 was the third largest copper operation in the world and one of the largest copper deposits on the planet (9,964 million tons). The Complainant states that currently has approximately 8,600 employees, and in 2019 produced 565 thousand tons of fine copper, with sales revenues of USD 3,147 million. Further, the Complainant has become one of the most important companies in the mining industry, positioning itself strongly in the market. In this context, the Complainant is the owner of many trademark registrations for COLLAHUASI in Chile, such as the following among others: (i) Registration No. 840.479, COLLAHUASI, in class 39, in Chile. (ii) Registration No. 854.484, COLLAHUASI, in classes 42- 45, in Chile. (iii) Registration No. 959.775, COLLAHUASI, in class 35, in Chile. (iv) Registration No. 964.689, COLLAHUASI, in class 35, in Chile (v) Registration No. 959.766, COLLAHUASI, in classes 1, 6 and 14, in Chile. (vi) Registration No. 1.056.027, COLLAHUASI, in class 25, in Chile. (vii) Registration No. 975.219, COLLAHUASI, in class 35, in Chile. (viii) Registration No. 975.221, COLLAHUASI, in class 39, in Chile. (ix) Registration No. 975.223, COLLAHUASI, in class 39, in Chile. (x) Registration No. 975.225, COLLAHUASI, in classes 42- 45, in Chile. (xi) Registration No. 975.227, COLLAHUASI, in classes 1, 6 and 14, in Chile. (xii) Registration No. 1.244.987, COLLAHUASI, in classes 37 and 42, in Chile. (xiii) Registration No. 1.315.114, COLLAHUASI, in class 39, in Chile. Additionally, the Complainant states that is the registered owner of the following domain names, all of which include mark COLLAHUASI: (i) <collahuasi.cl> (ii) <collahuasichile.cl (iii) <mineracollahuasi.com (iv) <mineracollahuasi.cl> (v) <fundacioncollahuasi.cl> (vi) <transporte-collahuasi.cl> The Panel notes that all said trademark registrations and domain names predate the registration of the disputed domain name <proveedorescollahuasi.com>. The documents to demonstrate COLLAHUASI’s previous ownership of the above-mentioned trademarks and domain names were included in Annexes 3 and 4 of the Complaint. The disputed domain name was registered on June 3, 2021. The disputed domain name was redirecting to the Complainant’s website and was used to send fraudulent emails. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to COLLAHUASI’S trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Further, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is a combination of the Spanish word for “suppliers” (“proveedores”) and the well-known COLLAHUASI trademark and company name. . The Complainant claims also that the word (“proveedores”) ads to the risk of confusion, likely leading Internet users to wrongly conclude that it is the official Complainant’s website. In this respect, the Complainant further cites previous UDRP decisions, such as the following: The panel that ruled in relation to the domain name <supplier-lidl.com> held that “The disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s LIDL trademark in its entirety, simply preceding it with the word ‘supplier’ and a hyphen. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other (descriptive) terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.” (See Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v. Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2020-1441 ) The panel that ruled in relation to on the domain name <supplier-swarovski.com> stated that “The addition of a generic term such as ‘supplier’ is merely descriptive and does not exclude the likelihood of confusion (…) To the contrary, for this Panel it rather strengthens the likelihood of confusion by making Internet users mistakenly believe that the website might be affiliated to the Complainant.” (See Swarovski AG v. Marius Muller , WIPO Case No. D2016-2315 ). The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. With respect to the bad faith element, the Complainant provides evidence that the domain name was registered to send fraudulent emails, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel considers that all the information provided by the Complainant attests that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark COLLAHUASI. Further, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the addition of the descriptive word “proveedores” (“suppliers” in Spanish) does nothing to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. See Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). Therefore, this first requirement has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint’s contentions, and the Respondent has not alleged any possible rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name. Neither has the Respondent refuted the allegations made by the Complainant. The Panel has not found the occurrence of any of the circumstances mentioned by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Quite the contrary, the Complainant has effectively demonstrated to be the owner of registered trademarks and associated domain names, including the company name Collahuasi, which are prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and that it has not licensed the use or exploitation of its trademark to the Respondent. Accordingly, and considering the unrebutted prima facie case made out by the Complainant, the Panel considers that the Complaint has also fulfilled the second element required by the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith This third element requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and was being used in bad faith. According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, there are a variety of circumstances to evidence and demonstrate the bad faith of the respondent. In this regard, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states: “the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” The Panel notes that the disputed domain name has been registered and was used to mislead the Complainant’s suppliers. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark COLLAHUASI together with the Spanish word “proveedores” (“suppliers”) and it appears that was used precisely to attract suppliers of the Complainant. Such composition of the domain name impersonates and suggests sponsorship by the Complainant. See Section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . The Panel finds the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s mark COLLAHUASI and its rights therein at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. These findings are based on: (i) the Complainant’s trademark having a strong reputation and being widely known; (ii) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) the above finding of the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (iv) the use of the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users. Given the similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s COLLAHUASI trademark and in light of the use given to the disputed domain name, the Panel agrees that the Respondent’s motive to register the disputed domain name can only have been to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s COLLAHUASI trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails constitute bad faith. See 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 . Consequently, for all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the third element required by 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 disputed domain name <proveedorescollahuasi.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Rodrigo Velasco Santelices Sole Panelist Date: August 12, 2021 1 The names and contact details of Respondent appear to have been used without his consent when registering the disputed domain name. In light of potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from the decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the corresponding Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name which includes the names of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the corresponding Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated that Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 .
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around proveedorescollahuasi.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.