Lonza Ltd. v. BASILE Geoerg Perthikoulh
Claim Number: FA2301002029843
Complainant is Lonza Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Jake M Christensen of Greer, Burns & Crain LTD, Illinois, USA. Respondent is BASILE Geoerg Perthikoulh (“Respondent”), Greece.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lonzabiotech.com>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2023; Forum received payment on January 30, 2023.
On January 31, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lonzabiotech.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 February 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2023 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@lonzabiotech.com. Also on February 2, 2023, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On March 1, 2023, 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 is one of the leading companies providing manufacturing services to the pharmaceutical, biotech and specialty ingredients markets with revenues of over US$ 2.2 billion in 2021 in the United States alone. Complainant has rights in the LONZA mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1973. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its LONZA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “biotech” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the LONZA mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LONZA mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “… with regards to this complaint, nothing here was done in bad faith, however to conclude this I concur with the transfer of the domain-name registration”.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <lonzabiotech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 1, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page