AbbVie, Inc. v. Hannah Buege
Claim Number: FA2112001977248
Complainant is AbbVie, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Hannah Buege (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <abbviecareer.com>, registered with Google LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 15, 2021.
On December 15, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <abbviecareer.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC 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 December 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 2022 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@abbviecareer.com. Also on December 16, 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 January 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, AbbVie, Inc., is a Chicago-based biopharmaceutical company that conducts research in multiple countries.
Complainant has rights in the ABBVIE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <abbviecareer.com> domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the ABBVIE mark, differing only through the addition of the generic term “career” as well as usage of the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <abbviecareer.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor did Complainant authorize or license Respondent’s use of the ABBVIE mark. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Instead, Respondent uses emails associated with the domain name to impersonate Hannah Buege, a Talent Acquisition Recruiter for Complainant. Additionally, the domain name addresses an inactive website.
Respondent registered and uses the <abbviecareer.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating an employee of Complainant. Furthermore, the domain is an inactive holding and resolves to a website lacking any substantive content.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in ABBVIE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the ABBVIE mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in ABBVIE.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant via email sent from the at-issue domain name in an effort to extort money or to offer jobs with Complainant.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the ABBVIE mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).
Additionally, Respondent’s <abbviecareer.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s ABBVIE mark in its entirety, the descriptive term “careers” and the generic top-level domain “.com” to form the at-issue domain name. Under the Policy these differences do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <abbviecareer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ABBVIE trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively. 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)”).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Hannah Buege” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <abbviecareer.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <abbviecareer.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Respondent uses an email account associated with the <abbviecareer.com> domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and exploit Complainant’s trademark by sending fraudulent job offers to third parties. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Further, Respondent’s <abbviecareer.com> domain name addresses an inactive website. Passively holding the at-issue domain name suggests that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in a domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). However, the Panel notes that in the instant case the at-issue domain name is technically active since it is being used for hosting email, an otherwise legitimate function for a domain name that, in itself, fails to connote any ill intent on the part of the domain name’s registrant.
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the at-issue confusingly similar domain name host email to facilitate an email scam. Respondent’s use of its <abbviecareer.com> domain name to steal Complainant’s identity and convey fraudulent messages to third parties disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See AbbVie, Inc. v. Patricia Gunter FA 1789114 (Forum June 28, 2018) (finding use of the disputed domain to impersonate an executive of Complainant disrupted Complainant’s business and constituted bad faith under the Policy); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Additionally and although not expressly argued by Complainant, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ABBVIE mark when it registered <abbviecareer.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from Respondent’s scam emails originating from the <abbviecareer.com> domain name that pretended to be from an employee of Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <abbviecareer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page