AbbVie Inc. v. Irina Sinica Ivanovna
Claim Number: FA2003001890130
Complainant is AbbVie Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Unite States. Respondent is Irina Sinica Ivanovna (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kaletra-drug.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 27, 2020.
On March 30, 2020, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider 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 March 30, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2020 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@kaletra-drug.com. Also on March 30, 2020, 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 April 24, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <kaletra-drug.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KALETRA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, AbbVie, Inc., is a research-based biopharmaceutical company. Complainant holds a registration for the KALETRA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,451,327, registered May 15, 2001).
Respondent registered the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name on March 19, 2020, and makes no active use of the domain name.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the KALETRA mark based on registration with the USPTO. 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).
Respondent’s <kaletra-drug.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s KALETRA mark, and simply adds a hyphen, a descriptive term, and a gTLD. The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark. Further, hyphens and gTLDs are irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in determining confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <kaletra-drug.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KALETRA mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the names and is not licensed by Complainant to use the KALETRA mark. The WHOIS information of record lists “Irina Sinica Ivanova” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also 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).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent makes no active use of the domain. The failure to actively use a disputed domain name fails to establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage that states “Welcome! Site kaletra-drug.com just created. Real content coming soon.” The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that the apparently anticipated use of the disputed domain name for the sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals by Respondent cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The use of a disputed domain name to sell counterfeit products does not establish rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name). Although Respondent has not yet made any product offerings through the disputed domain name, the resolving website references Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and used the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent makes no active use of the domain and there is no imaginable good faith use of the domain name containing Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the KALETRA mark, due to the longstanding registration of the mark and Respondent’s use of the mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kaletra-drug.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page