Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. v. H R / Bryant Rashaad
Claim Number: FA2103001937230
Complainant is Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is H R / Bryant Rashaad ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <takedacareer.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC; and <career-takeda.com>, registered with Google LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 19, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 19, 2021.
On March 19, 2021, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <takedacareer.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent H R is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC 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"). An equivalent confirmation was received on the same date from Google LLC concerning the registration of the <career-takeda.com> domain name by Respondent Bryant Rashaad.
On March 24, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 13, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@takedacareer.com, postmaster@career-takeda.com. Also on March 24, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 19, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder." Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names in this proceeding are effectively controlled by the same person or entity. The domain names are registered in different names. However, much of the registration data appears to be fictitious, and similarities in the email addresses and other registration data suggest to the Panel that a single person or entity is responsible for both registrations. (For example, the registrant names, "H R" and "Bryant Rashaad," are likely references to Rashaad Bryant, an actual Takeda Human Resources professional; the email addresses used in the two registrations are nomoreloss5@mail.com and nomoreloss1@mail.com; and the physical addresses are in different U.S. states but include telephone numbers associated with yet another state, Arizona). And, of course, the domain names are composed of virtually identical elements and were registered within a span of less than two weeks. Furthermore, Respondent has not come forward to dispute the allegation that it is one entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the inclusion of both domain names in this proceeding.
Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity. See, e.g., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Barbara Metzger / Lucas Farber, FA 1936247 (Forum Apr. 15, 2021) (treating domain names as being effectively controlled by one person or entity based upon similarities between domain names and other circumstances). The Panel determines that both of the disputed domain names may properly be subject to this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical company that was founded in 1781 and now has a presence in more than 70 countries throughout the world. Complainant has used the TAKEDA mark in connection with its products and services since 1910 and claims that the mark has become famous. Complainant owns trademark registrations for TAKEDA in the United States and many other jurisdictions worldwide, and also asserts extensive common law rights.
The disputed domain names <takedacareer.com> and <career-takeda.com> were registered on February 11, 2021, and February 1, 2021, respectively. Both were registered via privacy registration services, in each case protecting the identity of the actual registrant from disclosure until the privacy shield was lifted in connection with this proceeding. Complainant states, with supporting evidence, that the <takedacareer.com> domain name has been used in fraudulent emails and other correspondence to job seekers, impersonating Complainant and incorporating its mark and logo, and claiming that the recipient had been selected for interviews or employment. Complainant suggests that the other disputed domain name likely was intended for or is already being put to similar use. Complainant states that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names; has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant; and has not received any authorization, permission, or license to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <takedacareer.com> and <career-takeda.com> is confusingly similar to its TAKEDA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain name were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
Each of the disputed domain names <takedacareer.com> and <career-takeda.com> incorporates Complainant's registered TAKEDA trademark, adding the generic term "career" (and, in one instance, a hyphen) and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., The Governor & Co. of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson's Bay AKA Hudson's Bay Co. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org ("Hudson's Bay Co."), D2020-0053 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2020) (finding <hbc-career.com> and <career-hbc.com> confusingly similar to HBC); Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Leonel Herneandez, FA 1725525 (Forum May 11, 2017) (finding <takedausapharma.com> confusingly similar to TAKEDA). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization. The only apparent use to which either of them has been put is to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at persons seeking employment with Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Hudson's Bay Co., supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Leonel Herneandez, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's well-known mark and is using at least one of them to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at persons seeking employment with Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Hudson's Bay Co., supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Leonel Herneandez, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <takedacareer.com> and <career-takeda.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 21, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page