Viterria.com

The timeline behind viterria.com

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

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 Bunge Canada Inc. v. EMMANUEL EBIKEBINA, Viterria Case No. D2026-2530 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bunge Canada Inc., Canada, represented by 101domain.com, United States of America. The Respondent is EMMANUEL EBIKEBINA, Viterria, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <viterria.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 11, 2026. On June 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 12, 2026, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 12, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 17, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 Canadian company that since 1924 (directly and through predecessors in title) has offered a range of grain origination, handling, storage, logistics, and merchandising services under the “Viterra” brand (and until recently under its former trading name Viterra Canada Inc). In particular, the Complainant operates a website at “www.viterra.com” which until the Complainant’s recent merger and rebranding, provided a range of information about the Complainant’s services. The Complainant has held a trademark registration for VITERRA (the “VITERRA Mark”) in a range of jurisdictions including the European Union since 2009 (European Union Trademark Registration Number 006541957, registered February 7, 2009, for a range of services in classes 35, 36, 39, 40, 42 and 44). The Domain Name was registered on January 6, 2026. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. The Complaint contains evidence that the Respondent has sent a series of emails from an email account in the address format “[...]@viterria.com” where the Respondent impersonates the Complainant. In those emails, the Respondent conducts a phishing scam where the Respondent impersonates the Complainant’s human resources team and purports to offer fake employment opportunities with the Complainant to third parties. 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 Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: a) It is the owner of the VITERRA Mark, having registered the VITERRA Mark in the European Union. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VITERRA Mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the VITERRA Mark (adding an additional “i”). b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the VITERRA Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the VITERRA Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Rather, the Domain Name is used to send emails impersonating the Complainant’s human resources team, which does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Domain Name is being used for emails that impersonate the Complainant’s human resources team in order to perpetuate fraud. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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 mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. A domain name which consists of a misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purpose of the first element. Here the addition of the letter “i” to the VITERRA Mark creates such a minor misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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 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 Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made 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. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. - The Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. - The Respondent is not 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. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.4. page 4 - The record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The Panel notes that the WhoIs lists “EMMANUEL EBIKEBINA, Viterria” as registrant of record. However, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent is actually commonly known under this name as opposed to simply registering the Domain Name under a pseudonym for the purpose of asserting rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has provided no evidence that an entity known as “Viterria” different to the Complainant exists and is operating a legitimate business. The mere fact that the name of a respondent appears from the WhoIs record to match the domain name, without additional affirmative evidence, does not lead to the conclusion that such a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii). Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is in connection with a phishing scheme, namely to send emails passing itself off as the Complainant’s human resources team to third parties offering fake employment opportunities, likely to involve the acquisition of confidential personal information or the commission of a fraud. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed to be phishing and impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed to be phishing and impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Domain Name has been used to create an email account where the Respondent sends communications purporting to be emails from the Complainant’s human resources team offering fake employment opportunities with the Complainant, likely to be the precursor to the commission of fraud. This activity commenced shortly after the Domain Name was registered. 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 Domain Name <viterria.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: July 23, 2026

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