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(s) is/are 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.

URS paragraph 1.2.6.1: The domain name at issue is composed with the Complainant’s CELGENE trademark, together with the extension “.bio”. The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The extension “.bio” is a non-exclusive wording referring to the goods and services provided under the CELGENE trademark in the medical field.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

URS paragraph 1.2.6.2: Respondent has not been authorized to use the domain name. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue and he used it in connection with a link farm providing links with names such as “Celgene Stock”, “Multi Myeloma” and “Pfizer Sales” and “GSK Stock”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not make any fair and noncommercial use of that domain name and has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

URS paragraph 1.2.6.3: Celgene is one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world. Respondent cannot have ignored the Complainant’s rights when registering the domain name at issue. Respondent has registered the disputed domain using a Privacy Blocker and provides no contact information on the website. Using a privacy service is one of the factors evidencing bad faith. Respondent has made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a link farm providing links with names such as “Celgene Stock”, “Multi Myeloma” and “Pfizer Sales” and “GSK Stock”, causing confusion and misdirecting consumers to other websites, including competitors ’websites. Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location, in the meaning of the URS Procedure. For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made 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.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

After reviewing the parties’ 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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

celgene.bio

	Complainant Submitted: November 4, 2015
	Commencement: November 6, 2015
	Default Date: November 23, 2015
	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: Celgene Corporation of Summit, NJ, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Cozen O'Connor Camille M Miller of Philadelphia, PA, United States of America

	Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, Panama, II, PA

	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.
	Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, as Examiner

	Registries: STARTING DOT LIMITED
	Registrars: eNom, Inc