AbbVie Inc. v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2305002046219
Complainant is AbbVie Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kim Boyle of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <abbvienet.co>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 26, 2023; Forum received payment on May 26, 2023.
On June 2, 2023, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbvienet.co> domain name is registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. 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 5, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 26, 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@abbvienet.co. Also on June 5, 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.
On July 7, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 registered the ABBVIE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,340,091, registered May 21, 2013). Respondent’s <abbvienet.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and adds the generic or descriptive term “net” and the “.co” country code top-level-domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <abbvienet.co> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent displays unrelated pay-per-click links. Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale.
Respondent registered and uses the <abbvienet.co> domain name in bad faith. Respondent displays unrelated pay-per-click links. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ABBVIE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
AbbVie Inc. is a worldwide specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company. Complainant registered the ABBVIE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,340,091, registered May 21, 2013). Respondent’s <abbvienet.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered the <abbvienet.co> domain name on July 23, 2022.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <abbvienet.co> domain name. Respondent uses the domain name to display unrelated pay-per-click links, presumably for commercial gain. Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale.
Respondent registered and uses the <abbvienet.co> domain name 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 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 rights in the ABBVIE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with, among others, the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,340,091, registered May 21, 2013). See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”).
Respondent’s <abbvienet.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and adds the generic or descriptive term “net” and the “.co” ccTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <abbvienet.co> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. 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). The WHOIS identifies “Milen Radumilo” as the registrant of the domain name. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the ABBVIE mark. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the disputed domain name. Accordingly, Respondent is not commonly known by the <abbvienet.co> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as the domain name resolves in a website that contains links wholly unrelated to Complainant or its services, presumably to commercially benefit from pay-per-click fees. Using a domain name to offer links to services unrelated to a complainant’s does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015). Here, Complainant provides screenshot evidence of the resolving website which displays unrelated links to third parties. Therefore, Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale to the public can show a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Huang Jia Lin, FA1504001614086 (Forum May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name contains a general offer for sale. The general offer of the domain name for sale is further evidence that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent registered and uses the <abbvienet.co> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying hyperlinks on its webpage that resolve to services unrelated to Complainant. See Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ABBVIE mark prior to registration of the <abbvienet.co> domain name. Actual knowledge is sufficient for a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (actual knowledge can be determined in an analysis of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the registration and subsequent use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
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 <abbvienet.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 20. 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page