Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Manlidy / GNN
Claim Number: FA2210002016796
Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Julie A. Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, US. Respondent is Manlidy / GNN (“Respondent”), Singapore.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <chemagilent.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 19, 2022; Forum received payment on October 19, 2022.
On October 20, 2022, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chemagilent.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, 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 October 24, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 14, 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@chemagilent.com. Also on October 24, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 states that it provides a wide variety of goods and services in, inter alia, the life sciences, diagnostics, and the laboratory and scientific research industries. Complainant is a Fortune 500 company and world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant was formed in 1999 after its predecessor company, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., announced a strategic realignment to create Complainant as an independent measurement company composed of test and measurement components, life sciences and chemical analysis, electronics, and semiconductor and communications products. That “spin-off” of Hewlett-Packard in 1999 received significant media attention because, at the time, the $2.1 billion raised from this initial public offering (“IPO”) was the largest IPO in Silicon Valley history. Complainant currently provides laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise and employs over 17,000 people worldwide serving customers in 110 countries, and serving approximately 265,000 laboratories, including major universities, hospitals, and research institutions globally. Complainant, through its domain name and corresponding website <agilent.com>, operates a robust online marketplace where its customers can choose from hundreds of different products which can be shipped to countries all over the world. Complainant’s revenues in 2021 exceeded $6.3 billion. Complainant asserts rights in the AGILENT mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2002. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its AGILENT mark as it includes the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “chem” (which stands for “checmicals”) and the “.coms” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the AGILENT mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving website offers adult entertainment material. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. The resolving website offers adult entertainment material. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. The WHOS information is false: the address identified by the registrar for Respondent is “singapore, singapore, singapore 1, Singapore”; however, “singapore” is not a real street address, and Respondent has clearly just repeated the country name multiple times. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark AGILENT uses it in connection with a wide variety of goods and services in, inter alia, the life sciences, diagnostics, and the laboratory and scientific research industries.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2002.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The resolving website offers adult entertainment material. The WHOIS information is false. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use.
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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s AGILENT mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “chem” (which stands for “chemicals”) and the “.com” gTLD. Simply adding a generic term and gTLD is not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark. See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may reference WHOIS information for the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information shows that the registrant is known as “Manlidy / GNN”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website offers adult entertainment material. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Huang feng, FA 2007753 (Forum Sept. 14, 2022) (“Respondent uses the confusingly similar <agielnt.com> domain name to address a website that hosts pornography and promotes pay-per-click links to third parties. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Altria Grp., Inc. and Altria Grp. Distrib. Co. v. xiazihong, FA 1732665 (Forum Jul. 1, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to display adult-oriented images is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), or a non-commercial or fair use under to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers adult entertainment material. This can be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Agilent Techs., Inc. v. biao liu, FA 2002885 (Forum Aug. 10, 2022) (“Respondent uses the confusingly similar <szagilent.com> domain to attract internet users to Respondent’s <szagilent.com> website for commercial gain by creating confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of <szagilent.com> to imply an affiliation with Complainant and then host adult oriented material and pornographic content on the <szagilent.com> website indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <szagilent.com> domain name.”); see also Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Lei, FA 1909237 (Forum Sept. 21, 2020) (finding bad faith where respondent used domain name “to divert internet users to a website hosting pornographic material along with other content,” which “disrupts [c]omplainant’s business while inappropriately exploiting [c]omplainant’s trademark for [r]espondent’s benefit”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in several prior UDRP cases. This establishes a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondent’s previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent’s registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information, and this can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <chemagilent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page