Bayercropscienceph.com + 5 more domains

The timeline behind bayercropscienceph.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bayer AG v. bayer crop science-ph, bayer crop science, Bayer Bayer, Bayer, Rajiv Wani, BAYER CROP SCIENCE LIMITED, Murat Kefeli, bayers, BAYER CROP SCIENCE PHILIPPINES, BAYER CROP SCIENCE PHILIPPINES and Mahır Beyaztas, Bayerılac Case No. D2026-1488 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bayer AG, Germany, represented by pm.legal, Germany. The Respondents are bayer crop science-ph, bayer crop science, Philippines, Bayer Bayer, Bayer, France, Rajiv Wani, BAYER CROP SCIENCE LIMITED, India, Murat Kefeli, bayers, Türkiye, BAYER CROP SCIENCE PHILIPPINES, BAYER CROP SCIENCE PHILIPPINES, Philippines, and Mahır Beyaztas, Bayerılac, Türkiye, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com>, <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, <bayerinc.org> <bayerstedarik.com>, <cropsciencebayerph.com> and <ilacbayer.com> are registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 8, 2026. On April 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 9, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 13, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 20, 2026. page 2 On April 13, 2026, the Center informed the parties in French and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com>, <bayerinc.org>, <bayerstedarik.com>, <cropsciencebayerph.com> and <ilacbayer.com>: is English while the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name <bayerhealthcaresas.com> is French. On April 20, 2026, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint in English and French, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2026. A Response was filed in English by the Respondent Mahır Beyaztas, Bayerılac, with the Center on May 13, 2026, which further sent email communications on May 15 and 20 2026. The Center appointed Mireille Buydens as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2026. 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 well-known German company with its history dating back to 1863, operating in 80 countries with more than 88,000 employees worldwide, offering products in the fields of healthcare, nutrition and plant protection under the BAYER trademark (hereafter “the BAYER Trademark” or “the Trademark”). The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the BAYER Trademark, including: - International trademark registration No. 1462909 for BAYER (word mark) registered on November 28, 2018, designating various jurisdictions including the Philippines; - International trademark registration No. 1476082 for BAYER (word mark) registered on December 10, 2018, designating various jurisdictions; - European Union trademark registration No. 017903200 for BAYER registered on September 21, 2018. Furthermore, the Complainant and its subsidiaries own numerous domain name registrations containing the BAYER Trademark, including <bayer.com> (which hosts the Complainant’s official website), <bayer.co.nz>, <bayer.com.au>, <bayer.co>, <bayer.be>, and <bayer.us>. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: Domain name Registration date <bayercropscienceph.com> May 5, 2025 <bayerhealthcaresas.com> October 16, 2025 <bayerinc.org> October 29, 2025 <bayerstedarik.com> May 22, 2024 <cropsciencebayerph.com> February 1, 2026 <ilacbayer.com> October 7, 2025 page 3 The Complainant has documented that all the disputed domain names (with the exception of the disputed domain name <bayerinc.org>) resolve to a website under construction using the same background picture. The disputed domain name <bayerinc.org> resolves to an error page. 5. Parties contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. The Complainant contends that all the disputed domain names incorporate the well-known BAYER Trademark and are confusingly similar to the BAYER Trademark. The specific Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity. The Complainant further contends that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. None of the Respondents is sponsored by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. None of the Respondents uses the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. None of the Respondents is commonly known by the corresponding disputed domain name. None of the Respondents is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. On the contrary, they all choose to register the well-known BAYER Trademark to resolve to inactive websites. Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by the Respondents in bad faith. Concerning the registration in bad faith, the Complainant asserts that “BAYER” is not a word a domain name registrant would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant. It is inconceivable that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names unaware of the Complainant and its rights in its highly distinctive and well- known BAYER Trademark. Concerning the use in bad faith, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names prevent the Complainant from reflecting its BAYER Trademark in corresponding domain names. In addition, the fact that the Respondents are using the disputed domain names in connection with active mail server entries gives rise to concerns that the disputed domain names are being used in connection with fraudulent emails. The fact that the Respondents are not actively using but merely passively holding the disputed domain names does not obstruct a finding of bad faith use under the Policy. There is no possible or conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain names that would not be illegitimate. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names is qualified to disrupt the Complainant’s business and that it is capable of reducing the number of visitors to the Complainant’s website, which may adversely affect the Complainant’s business and therefore constitutes bad faith. B. Respondent None of the Respondents did formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions, except the Respondent Mahir Beyaztas who sent an email to the Center on May 13, 2026, as well as on May 15 and 20 2026. The Respondent Mahir Beyaztas, registrant of the disputed domain name <ilacbayer.com>, explains that he was a victim of identity theft. and that he did not register any of the disputed domain names, including <ilacbayer.com>, and has no connection whatsoever with the disputed domain names. On May 20, 2026, he provided a screen capture in Turkish stating “Your Domain Registration subscription for bayerilac.com has been cancelled”. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues A. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to six nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are under common control for the following reasons: - All of the disputed domain names (with the exception of <bayerinc.org>) are used in connection with the same website (a website under construction using the same picture as background); - All of the disputed domain names have been registered with the same registrar (Squarespace Domains LLC). - All of the disputed domain names share the identical name server entries “googledomains.com”. - The disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com>, <bayerhealthcaresas.com> and <bayerinc.org> refer to the names of some of the Complainant’s subsidiaries, namely Bayer CropScience Inc. (Philippines), Bayer HealthCare SAS (France) and Bayer Inc. (Canada). - All of the disputed domain names include the well-known company name “Bayer”. - All of the disputed domain names (with the exception of the disputed domain name <bayerinc.org>) are used in connection with the identical mail server entry “smtp.google.com”. The Respondents did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11.2. page 5 In the present case, as regards common control, the Panel notes that, while the fact that the disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com>, < bayerhealthcaresas.com> and <bayerinc.org> refer to the Complainant’s subsidiaries and contain the BAYER Trademark may be relevant for assessing the merits of the case, these elements are not relevant for the consolidation issue as they do not as such imply a common control. The fact that all the disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar is not an indication of common control per se. The Registrar is a major player in the field of domain name registrations, and it is not surprising that it has been used by the Respondents like by many other registrants. The fact that the disputed domain names (except <bayerinc.org>) resolve to a website “under construction” with the same background picture and lay-out is not an indication of common control, either. On the contrary, it appears that this page is the Registrar’s template for sites “under construction” (the logo of Squarespace Domains is visible in the upper left part of all the sites under the disputed domain names except <bayerinc.org>). It is therefore likely that the Respondents, using the same Registrar for a website “under construction”, have also used the same template provided by the Registrar. As a result, their websites “under construction” under the disputed domain names have the same background picture and lay-out. The Complainant further argues that all the disputed domain names share the identical name server entries “googledomains.com”. However, this is not an indication of common control as “googledomains.com” is a default nameserver of the Registrar and all the Respondents have used the Registrar for the registration of the disputed domain names. It is therefore not surprising that they share the same name server entry. The Complainant further explains that all the disputed domain names (with the exception of <bayerinc.org>) are used in connection with the identical mail server entry “smtp.google.com”. However, “smtp.google.com” is necessary to add a mail exchange (MX) record to any subdomain in a Google account/workspace. As a result, the Panel notes that the elements mentioned above and raised by the Complainant are likely to simply result from the fact that the Respondents are using the same Registrar and have all activated a MX record (with the exception of <bayerinc.org>). The Panel further notes other elements indicating that the disputed domain names <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, <bayerinc.org>, <bayerstedarik.com> and <ilacbayer.com> are not under common control: - The language of the registration agreement is not always the same: the language is indeed French for <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, while it is English for the other disputed domain names; it is rather unlikely that the same person or entity would use various languages to register domain names; - The disputed domain names mentioned above were registered over a period of 17 months; - The Respondents are located in different countries all over the world (France for <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, India for <bayerinc.org>, Türkiye for <bayerstedarik.com> and <ilacbayer.com>); - The names, email addresses and telephone numbers are different for each of these disputed domain names; - There is no naming pattern in these disputed domain names (“Trademark + subsidiary name” for <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, “Trademark + inc” for <bayerinc.org>; “Trademark + Turkish term meaning ‘supply’” for <bayerstedarik.com>; “Turkish term meaning ‘medicine’ + Trademark” for <ilacbayer.com>); they all use the BAYER Trademark, but this may be independent opportunistic registrations. page 6 In these circumstances, the Panel is not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, these four disputed domain names (<bayerhealthcaresas.com>, <bayerinc.org>, <bayerstedarik.com> and <ilacbayer.com>) are under common control with the other two disputed domain names considered below. Concerning the disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com> and <cropsciencebayerph.com>, the Panel notes that these disputed domain names are likely to be under common control for the following reasons: - Both disputed domain names show a common pattern, namely the name of the same Complainant’s subsidiary (Bayer Crop Science) including the BAYER Trademark + the letters “ph” (which may refer to the country code for the Philippines) + the same gTLD “.com”; - Both registrants are located in the same city in the Philippines; - Both disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar, and are both under construction. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes regarding these two disputed domain names would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel will decide the complaint regarding the disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com> and <cropsciencebayerph.com>. On the other hand, the Panel declines to consolidate the disputes regarding the disputed domain names <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, <bayerinc.org>, <bayerstedarik.com> and <ilacbayer.com>. This decision is made without prejudice to the possibility of refiling complaints regarding these four disputed domain names. B. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is English, except for the disputed domain name <bayerhealthcaresas.com> where it is French. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. In the present case, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English because the Panel will only decide the Complaint for the disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com> and <cropsciencebayerph.com>. The language of the Registration Agreement for these disputed domain names is English. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Substantive issues. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 7 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the BAYER Trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the BAYER Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “crop”, “science” and “ph”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the BAYER Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents have not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and have not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the available records, the Respondents are not licensed by nor affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor is there any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, either. On the contrary, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names reproduce the well-known BAYER Trademark with the addition of the descriptive terms “crop”, “science” and “ph”. The terms “crop” and “science” both describe one of the Complainant’s main field of activity and, as far as the disputed domain name <bayercropscience> is concerned, also corresponds to the company name of one of the Complainant’s subsidiary (Bayer Crop Science). The letters “ph” may refer to the country code for the Philippines, where the Complainant is also active according to its official website. These circumstances affirm the Respondents’ intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s BAYER Trademark. By registering and using the page 8 disputed domain names <bayercropscienceph.com> and <cropsciencebayerph.com>, the Respondents induce Internet users into believing that the disputed domain names are owned by the Complainant or one of its subsidiaries in the Philippines. At the date of this Decision, they resolve to an error page. Such use can be considered neither as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondents’ registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Concerning the registration of the disputed domain names, the Panel first notes that the well-known character of the BAYER Trademark was recognized by several prior UDRP decisions. See, inter alia, Bayer AG v. huang cheng, WIPO Case No. D2015-1932; Bayer AG v. Wu Zi Jun, WIPO Case No. D2018- 2676; Bayer AG v. Whoisprotection.cc / Drago Price, WIPO Case No. D2020-0051; Bayer AG v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Todd Peter, WIPO Case No. D2021-2726; Bayer AG v. Stobart Mike, WIPO Case No. D2024-4393. As explained above, the disputed domain names reproduce the well-known BAYER Trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive terms “crop”, “science” and “ph”. The terms “crop” and “science” describe one of the Complainant’s main field of activity (products and services based on science and developed for protecting plants) and, as far as the disputed domain name <bayercropscience> is concerned, also corresponds to the company name of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries (Bayer Crop Science). The letters “ph” may refer to the country code for the Philippines, where the Complainant is also active according to its official website. The Panel also notes that the Complainant owns a trademark registration for the BAYER Trademark in the Philippines and is carrying business in the Philippines under the BAYER Trademark, where the Respondents are purportedly located. The Complainant’s official website indeed contains pages dedicated to the Philippines, where it is stated that “Bayer has operations in the Philippines for its three divisions focused on health & nutrition—Crop Science, Pharmaceuticals, and Consumer Health”. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark, and particularly in the case of coined or fanciful marks, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.1.4. Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. In the present case, the Panel notes the well-known character of the BAYER Trademark, already recognized by the UDRP panel decisions mentioned above. Besides, the Panel notes that a quick search for the term “bayer” online (which is a fanciful term), would have revealed to the Respondents the existence of the Complainant and its BAYER Trademark. Taking into account the fact that the disputed domain names are reproducing the Complainant’s BAYER Trademark in its entirety, and even the company name of a Complainant’s subsidiary, and the fact that the Complainant owns a registration for the BAYER Trademark in the Philippines and is carrying business in the Philippines page 9 (where the Respondents are purportedly located), the Panel finds that the Respondents were more likely than not aware of the Complainants’ BAYER Trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2 Concerning the use in bad faith, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names are passively hold. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name, including a “under construction” page, would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or (iv) the use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. The Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s BAYER Trademark, the composition of the disputed domain names, and the failure of the Respondents to submit a response. The Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 names <bayercropscienceph.com and <cropsciencebayerph.com> be transferred to the Complainant. The Complaint is denied with respect to the disputed domain names <bayerhealthcaresas.com>, <bayerinc.org>, <bayerstedarik.com> and <ilacbayer.com> without prejudice to the possibility of refiling complaints regarding these four disputed domain names. /Mireille Buydens/ Mireille Buydens Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.