Hologic, Inc. v. AWS 001
Claim Number: FA2006001902470
Complainant is Hologic, Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Lawrence R. Robins of FisherBroyles LLP, Massachusetts. Respondent is AWS 001 (“Respondent”), Michigan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <holoqic.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 30, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 30, 2020.
On July 2, 2020, Amazon Registrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <holoqic.com> domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Amazon Registrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Amazon Registrar, 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 July 8, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@holoqic.com. Also on July 8, 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 July 30, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, Hologic, Inc., provides medical technology focused on improving women’s health. Complainant has rights in the HOLOGIC mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,857,248, registered October 5, 2010). Respondent’s <holoqic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLOGIC mark because it simply substitutes the letter “g” with a “q.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <holoqic.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the HOLOGIC mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name to commit fraud by sending emails impersonating Complainant and seeking payment from Complainant’s customers.
Respondent registered and uses the <holoqic.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to send emails impersonating Complainant in order to defraud customers of Complainant. Additionally, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HOLOGIC mark based on Complainant’s long term use of the mark and Respondent’s use of the name of actual employee of Complainant in furtherance of the scheme to defraud customers.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the HOLOGIC mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLOGIC mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the HOLOGIC mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,857,248, registered October 5, 2010). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).).
The Panel finds that of the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HOLOGIC mark because it simply replaces the letter “g” with the similar looking letter “q.” A domain name that features a substitution of a letter or misspelling to deceive Internet users is considered confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”). See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BANK OF AMERICA mark because it contains the entire mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’). See also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HOLOGIC mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “AWS 001” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses an email address associated with Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant (in particular an existing and identified employee of the Complainant) in furtherance of a phishing scam. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through emails is not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum March 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, June 8, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s HOLOGIC mark. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant (and indeed a specific employee of Complainant) for financial gain. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses an email address associated with the Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as an employee of the Complainant to disrupt the Complainant’s business or for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as an employee of a complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds 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 <holoqic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: July 31, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page