DECISION

 

Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. davison paul

Claim Number: FA2104001941031

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alexander J.A. Garcia of Perkins Coie LLP, Colorado, USA.  Respondent is davison paul (“Respondent”), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <agilent.co.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 9, 2021.

 

On April 12, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <agilent.co.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 April 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 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@agilent.co.com.  Also on April 15, 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 May 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a Fortune 500 company and world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant was formed in 1999 after its predecessor company, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., announced a strategic realignment to create Complainant as an independent measurement company composed of test and measurement components, life sciences and chemical analysis, electronics, and semiconductor and communications products. That “spin-off” of Hewlett-Packard in 1999 received significant media attention because, at the time, the $2.1 billion raised from this initial public offering (“IPO”) was the largest IPO in Silicon Valley history. Complainant currently provides laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise and employs over 16,000 people worldwide serving customers in 110 countries, and serving approximately 265,000 laboratories, including major universities, hospitals, and research institutions globally. Complainant, through its domain name and corresponding website <agilent.com>, operates a robust online marketplace where its consumers can choose from hundreds of different products which can be shipped to countries all over the world. Complainant’s revenues in 2019 exceeded $5 billion. Complainant has rights in the AGILENT mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2001.

 

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AGILENT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic second-level domain (gSLD) “.co” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the AGILENT mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using it to pass off as Complainant and pursue a phishing scheme. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as the Complainant and pursue a phishing scheme. Additionally, Complainant provided fraudulent WHOIS information when they registered the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AGILENT mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark AGILENT and uses it to market products and services in the sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets.

 

Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2001.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is used in fraudulent emails, which display Complainant’s mark and the URL of its legitimate website.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s AGILENT mark in its entirety and merely adds a period, the geographic term “co”, which stands for Columbia, and the gTLD “.com”. This fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”); see also Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as “[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Häfele Vietnam LLC v. Cong Hoan, FA 01813668 (Forum Nov. 28, 2018) (finding that “the <hafele.co.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the [complainant’s] HAFELE mark”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its AGILENT mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain names where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). Here, the WHOIS information provided by the registrar lists the registrant as “davison paul”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name in fraudulent emails that impersonate Complainant and phish for sensitive financial information and payments. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent impersonated one of Complainant’s employees and sent an email using the disputed domain name to one of Complainant’s business partners asking them to make a payment of $1,061,337.15 on an outstanding balance to a fraudulent bank account; the fraudulent email displayed Complainant’s mark and the URL of its legitimate website. A Respondent using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as Complainant in pursuance of a phishing scheme may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that the WHOIS information is incorrect, providing evidence that there is no “Crescent Avenue” with the zip code given by Respondent. However there appears to be a Crescent Avenue in New York, NY, albeit with a different zip code. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not consider it further.

 

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in pursuance of a phishing scheme. A Respondent using a confusingly similar domain name in order to pursue a phishing scheme may be indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the fraudulent emails display Complainant’s mark and the URL of its legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <agilent.co.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated:  May 11, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page