Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Devang Ajmera
Claim Number: FA2308002056413
Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Julie A. Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Devang Ajmera (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <agillent.org>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2023; Forum received payment on August 7, 2023.
On August 8, 2023, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <agillent.org> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC 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 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 29, 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@agillent.org. Also on August 9, 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 August 30, 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 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 18,000 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 2022 exceeded $6.8 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.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its AGILENT mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (an extra letter “l” is added), merely adding the “.org” 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 its AGILENT mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant, as part of a fraud designed to persuade Complainant’s customers and/or business associates to send funds to Respondent. Specifically, Respondent impersonated one of Complainant’s employees and sent an email (using the disputed domain name) to one of Complainant’s customers, purporting to confirm that the customer had made a partial payment and requesting payment of the customer’s outstanding balance; the signature block of the fraudulent email included the employee’s title, and telephone number. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to engage in a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the AGILENT mark, evidenced by the fame of the mark and Respondent’s use of the mark to engage in a fraudulent email phishing scheme. 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 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays the title and telephone number of one of Complainant’s employees.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s AGILENT mark (a extra letter “l” is added), with the mere addition of the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.org”. Such changes are insufficient to overcome confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Thus, the Panel 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: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a 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 of the disputed domain name is “Devang Ajmera”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to engage in a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent impersonated one of Complainant’s employees and sent an email (using the disputed domain name) to one of Complainant’s customers, purporting to confirm that the customer had made a partial payment and requesting payment of the customer’s outstanding balance. When a respondent uses a domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme, the Panel may find that the respondent is not using the domain name in compliance with Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to engage in a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Past panels have agreed that using a domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme may indicate that a respondent acted in bad faith. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum Jul. 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant’s President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays the title and telephone number of one of Complainant’s employees. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, by merely adding the letter “l” to Complainant’s mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting 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 <agillent.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page