Grupobunge.com

The timeline behind grupobunge.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.

DECISION Bunge Limited v. zhanghui Claim Number: FA2105001944014 PARTIES Complainant is Bunge Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Renee Reuter, Missouri, USA. Respondent is zhanghui (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <grupobunge.com>, registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 5, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 4, 2021. On May 8, 2021, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <grupobunge.com> domain name is registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On May 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 2021, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@grupobunge.com. Also on May 17, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 8, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides importing and exporting services for grain products. Complainant has rights in the BUNGE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,643,986, registered Nov. 25, 2014). Respondent’s <grupobunge.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the BUNGE mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “grupo” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <grupobunge.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the BUNGE mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves a page with various links related to adult oriented material. Respondent registered and uses the <grupobunge.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BUNGE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is Bunge Limited (“Complainant”), of St. Louis, MO, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark BUNGE, which it has used continuously since at least as early as 1995, in connection with its provision of various types of edible grains and oils, along with related import/export agency goods and services. Respondent is Zhanghui/Hei Long Jiang/ Hei He Shi (“Respondent”), of China. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Singapore. The Panel notes that the <grupobunge.com> domain name was registered on or about March 8, 2021. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the BUNGE mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,643,986, registered Nov. 25, 2014). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i). Complainant argues Respondent’s <grupobunge.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUNGE mark as it contains the BUNGE mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “grupo” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). The Panel here finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has proven this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case. Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <grupobunge.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BUNGE mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Zhanghui,” and there is no evidence presented by Respondent to indicate that Respondent was authorized to use the BUNGE mark. The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues Respondent’s <grupobunge.com> domain name resolves to and is used to display adult-oriented material. The use of a disputed domain name to redirect internet users to adult-oriented material is not a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). See Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (finding that use of the <targetstore.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website did not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name redirecting internet users to adult-oriented materials. The Panel here finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii)). Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Complainant has proven this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <grupobunge.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”). See also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name redirecting internet users using third party links. The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). Complainant argues Respondent’s <grupobunge.com> domain name resolves to and is used to display adult-oriented material. The use of a disputed domain name to redirect internet users to adult-oriented material can be used as evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1644005 (Forum Dec. 1, 2015) (finding that the disputed domain’s resolving website contained adult-related content, including links to commercial pornographic websites, online, dating, and news related to porn actors and the porn industry, and therefore Respondent failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use). As previously noted, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name redirecting internet users to adult-oriented materials. The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complainant has proven this element. DECISION As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <grupobunge.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist Dated: June 23, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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