Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Josh Dawson
Claim Number: FA2206001998781
Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Julie A. Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Josh Dawson (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <agllent.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 1, 2022. The Forum received payment on June 1, 2022.
On June 1, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <agllent.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 June 3, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2022 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@agllent.com. Also on June 3, 2022, 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 3, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 is a Fortune 500 company and world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant claims rights in the AGILENT mark through numerous registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <agllent.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <agllent.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AGILENT mark in any way. Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent previously used it to resolve to a webpage hosting third-party pay-per-click advertisements. It currently resolves to an inactive webpage and Respondent is using emails associated with the domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent has previously been found to have engaged in bad faith typosquatting. See BNP Paribas v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf. / Josh Dawson, DCO2021-0053 (WIPO Aug. 23, 2021). Respondent registered the typosquatted <agllent.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s AGILENT mark. Having been used to host pay-per-click advertisements, the <agllent.com> domain name currently resolves to an inactive webpage and is being used in bad faith to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of an illegal phishing scheme designed to defraud and extract sensitive financial information and/or payments from Complainant’s business partners and customers.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 shown that it has rights in the AGILENT mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,643,345, registered October 29, 2002). The Panel finds Respondent’s <agllent.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it differs from Complainant’s mark only by the substitution of the letter “l” for the letter “i” along with the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
The <agllent.com> domain name was registered on May 15, 2022, long after Complainant’s AGILENT mark had become well-known.
Complainant has shown that, on the following day, Respondent, claiming to be an employee from Complainant’s “Credit & Collection Department”, sent an email from an address utilizing the <agllent.com> domain name to one of Complainant’s business partners, seeking payments to a bank account allegedly held by “Barclays Bank Plc.”, claiming “we have updated our bank information.” A similarly false email was sent on the following day.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <agllent.com> domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s well-known AGILENT mark when Respondent registered the typosquatted <agllent.com> domain name and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining payments by impersonating an employee of Complainant.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <agllent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page