Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. and R. P. Scherer Technologies, LLC v. Ana Catarina
Claim Number: FA1912001874937
Complainant is Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. and R. P. Scherer Technologies, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Vanessa A. Ignacio, United States. Respondent is Ana Catarina (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <catallent.co>, registered with Domainbox Limited.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 12, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 12, 2019.
On December 16, 2019, Domainbox Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <catallent.co> domain name is registered with Domainbox Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domainbox Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domainbox Limited 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 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 15, 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@catallent.co. Also, on December 26, 2019, 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 20, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 is a provider of development solutions and delivery technologies for drugs, biologics and other health products.
Complainant holds a registration for the CATALENT service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,496,684, registered September 2, 2008, and renewed as of September 11, 2018.
Respondent registered the domain name <catallent.co> on December 3, 2019.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CATALENT mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s CATALENT mark.
Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant’s Comparator Project Co-Coordinator online in order to facilitate an e-mail “phishing” scheme designed to solicit payment information from Complainant’s customers under false pretenses.
Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The domain name is an instance of typo-squatting.
Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity when registering the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the CATALENT mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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:
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable claims and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the supporting evidence is manifestly contradictory. See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). But see 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 CATALENT service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum August 4, 2015) (finding that a UDRP complainant’s USPTO registration for a mark sufficiently demonstrated its rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here United Kingdom). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <catallent.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CATALENT service mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of an extraneous letter “l” and the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co,” the code representing Columbia. These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017):
The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling — fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.
See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum March 27, 2007) (concluding that affixing a gTLD to the mark of another in creating a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <catallent.co> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <catallent.co> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the CATALENT service mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Ana Catarina,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent employs the <catallent.co> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s Comparator Project Co-Coordinator online in order to facilitate an e-mail “phishing” scheme designed to solicit payment information from Complainant’s customers under false pretenses. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum November 30, 2016):
Respondent uses the … domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a [money] transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the <catallent.co> domain name, as described in the Complaint, disrupts Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum November 30, 2016):
Respondent uses the … 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) ….
We are also convinced by the evidence that the <catallent.co> domain name is an instance of typo-squatting, i.e.: the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name in order to take advantage of typing errors commonly made by Internet users in entering into their web browsers the names of enterprises with which they seek to do business online. Typo-squatting, without more, is proof of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015):
Respondent has also engaged in typo[-]squatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is plain from the record that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the CATALENT mark when it registered the <catallent.co> domain name. this further demonstrates Respondent’s registration of the domain name in bad faith. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018):
[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <catallent.co> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: January 22, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page