WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bayer AG v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) / Lukasz Ziolkowski Case No. D2019-0753 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bayer AG, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP), United States of America (“United States”) / Lukasz Ziolkowski, Poland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with L Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2019. On April 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 3, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 4, 2019 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 April 9, 2019.

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 April 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2019.

The Center appointed William Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 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. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a multinational company based in Germany with activities in healthcare, nutrition and plant protection. The Complainant has over 250 affiliates and more than 100,000 employees worldwide. The Complainant began manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products in 1888, and has sold such products under the BAYER trademark ever since.

The Complainant is the owner of about 700 registrations and pending applications of the word mark “BAYER”, including in the United States of America, the European Union and in Poland. The Complainant’s registrations are in relation to a wide range of goods and services. Copies of the printouts of the official trademark databases evidencing the

Relevant trademark registrations are attached to the Complaint.

The Complainant and its subsidiaries also own hundreds of domain name registrations containing the BAYER trademark including , and .

The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website that copies the design of the Complainant’s websites and purports to offer injectable, oral or hormone-growth products that are either the Complainant’s products or counterfeit products.

On its website, the Respondent falsely indicates that it is “a Canadian subsidiary of Bayer AG and the corporate headquarters for the Canadian healthcare operations” and uses what the Complainant asserts is its own slogan “Science For A Better Life”. The website also refers to Schering AG, a company that was bought by the Complainant in 2006. After lodging the initial Complaint a take-down notice was filed and as a result the relevant website is no longer publicly available.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the well-known BAYER trademark and is confusingly similar to it. Confu