AbbVie, Inc. v. See PrivacyGuardian.org
Claim Number: FA2204001991351
Complainant: AbbVie, Inc. of North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Richard Law Group, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Respondent: Privacy Guardian / See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative: /
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
Registrars: NameSilo, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 6, 2022
Commencement: April 11, 2022
Default Date: April 26, 2022
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant claims to be a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company. The Complainant states to be the owner of multiple word trademarks “ABBVIE” in several countries. The Complainant has submitted in particular evidence that it is the owner of the U.S. trademark “ABVVIE” with registration number 4 340,091 registered on May 21, 2013 for medical services in class 44 (hereinafter the “Trademark”).
As proof of use, the Complainant has submitted screenshots of the website www.abbvie.com. Therefore, the Complainant has shown it has made effective use of the Trademark.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
The Respondent did not file a response.
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The disputed domain name <abvvie.cloud> is identical to the Trademark, with the sole addition of the suffix ‘.cloud’ (which can be disregarded when assessing the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the previous sign).
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no relationship with the Respondent, that the Respondent is not commonly known as “ABBVIE” or any variation thereof and that it did not grant any authorization to the Respondent to use the ABVVIE Trademark(s). The Complainant points to the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a site that duplicates the design and content of its own website www.abbvie.com. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no legitimate right of interest in the domain name.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examiner notes that the Respondent has not shown any preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, did not provide evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. In addition, there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark and no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “ABBVIE” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Examiner decides that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has replicated the Complainant’s official website and that this proves the Respondent’s bad faith.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examiner finds that the registration of the disputed domain name consisting of the Trademark in its entirety (and the suffix “.cloud”) in combination with the replication of the content and layout of the Complaint's website, demonstrates the malicious intent of the Respondent. The fact that the Respondent replicated both the content and layout of the Complainant's website implies that the Respondent had prior knowledge of the Complainant and of its Trademark at the moment of registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Examiner concludes that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.3.c of the URS Procedure.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<abbvie.cloud>
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: April 28, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page