Danaher Corporation v. Hasan Rahman
Claim Number: FA2207002005294
Complainant is Danaher Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Adam Harber of Williams & Connolly LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Hasan Rahman ("Respondent"), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <danaher.bond>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 22, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 22, 2022.
On July 26, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <danaher.bond> 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 August 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 22, 2022 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@danaher.bond. Also on August 1, 2022, 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 August 25, 2022, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a global conglomerate engaged in the design, manufacturing, and marketing of products and services in the life sciences, dental, industrial, and other sectors. Complainant has tens of thousands of employees worldwide, and millions of people around the world use its products and services. Complainant has used the DANAHER mark in connection with its products and services since 1984. Complainant owns trademark registrations for DANAHER in China and many other jurisdictions around the world, and has a pending application to register the mark in the United States. Complainant also asserts common law trademark rights arising from longstanding and extensive use.
The disputed domain name <danaher.bond> was registered in February 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that it has attempted to communicate with Respondent but has not received a response. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no business relationship with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <danaher.bond> is confusingly similar to its DANAHER mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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").
The disputed domain name <danaher.bond> corresponds to Complainant's registered DANAHER trademark. The addition of a top-level domain such as ".bond" is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corp. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Hasan Rahman, D2022-2163 (WIPO Aug. 8, 2022) (finding <lennar.bond> identical to LENNAR); Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Constantin Busuioceanu, D2022-0095 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2022) (finding <bmw.bond> identical to BMW). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical 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 name, 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 name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use. These circumstances support an inference that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jordan Forsythe, FA 2005756 (Forum Aug. 19, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corp. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Hasan Rahman, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, 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 name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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 a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark, and does not appear to have made any active use of the name. In addition, Respondent did not respond to Complainant's communications attempts, and has been found by a previous panel to have registered a similar domain name in bad faith. See Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corp. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Hasan Rahman, supra. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jordan Forsythe, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corp. v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Hasan Rahman, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <danaher.bond> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page