WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Jake Austin / Tetraval Case No. D2019-0133 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A of Pully, Switzerland represented by Valea AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Jake Austin / Tetraval of Mesa, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2019. On January 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2019, 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 January 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2019.

The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2019. 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.

On March 1, 2019, the Center received an unsolicited email from an individual with the same name as the Respondent. The Center confirmed receipt of this filing and sent it to the Panel for consideration as to its admissibility. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the holding company and financial support and control function for the Tetra Laval Group and its three autonomous subsidiaries Tetra Pak, DeLaval and Sidel Group, which are involved in the food packaging industry.

Worldwide the Tetra Laval Group has about 35 plants, more than 30 service units with operations in almost 200 countries.

The Complainant owns extensive number of registrations for the trademark TETRA LAVAL, including:

- German Trademark Registration No. 2083744 with priority of December 18, 1992 for goods of Classes 7, 9, 11, 16 and 20 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks (hereinafter: the “Nice Classification”) and

- Chinese Trademark Registration No. 905703 with priority of November 28, 1996 for goods of Class 21 of the Nice Classification.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 16, 2019 and has been used in a fraudulent email scheme, attempting to extract monetary transactions from the Complainant’s business units. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TETRA LAVAL trademark since it reproduces it in its entirety

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Taking into account the global reputation of its TETRA LAVAL trademark no individual or business could legitimately adopt it for any other reason than creating a false impression of an association with the Complainant.

The Complainant states that the Respondent hijacked the name of the chairman of the Board of Tetra Laval Group and used it in connection with the disputed domain name trying to obtain personal and financial information from the Complainant’s business units. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings I. Procedural Matters

On March 1, 2019 the Center received an email from individual with the same name as the Respondent.

The email was sent from an address different to that of confirmed by the Registrar on the underlying registrant verification and the sender among others states: “I received a letter about complaint around contact info listed under the whois info on the domain mentioned in subject”, “I am not sure what is going here”, “I can’t say for sure what is going on here but seems like a mistake on godaddy side possibly on how my info got put into this domain information”.

Neither the Rules nor the Supplemental Rules make provision for supplemental filings, except at the request of the panel (see Rules, paragraph 12.).

Paragraph 10 of the Rules require that the panel conduct the proceeding “with due expedition”.

The sender of this unsolicited email does not allege anything substantial, let alone provide evidence on whether in fact he is the individual confirmed as the underlying registrant and whose personal data have been used without his knowledge. On balance the Panel declines to consider whether these circumstances fall under the so-called “Name Redacted” identity theft scenarios which have been increasingly common among UDRP cases. II. Substantive Matters

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

As noted in many previous UDRP panel decisions, a responden