DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. Abbvie trenton

Claim Number: FA2404002091726

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Abbvie trenton ("Respondent"), South Dakota, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abbviecareer.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 3, 2024; Forum received payment on April 3, 2024.

 

On April 4, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbviecareer.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On April 5, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 25, 2024 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@abbviecareer.us. Also on April 5, 2024, 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 April 26, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.

        

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <abbviecareer.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ABBVIE mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <abbviecareer.us> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <abbviecareer.us> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, AbbVie, Inc., is a well-known biopharmaceutical company. Complainant holds a registration for the ABBVIE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 4,340,091 registered May 21, 2013).

 

Respondent registered the <abbviecareer.us> domain name on March 26, 2024, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.

 

DISCUSSION

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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ABBVIE mark based on the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).")

 

Respondent's <abbviecareer.us> domain name uses Complainant's ABBVIE mark and simply adds the word "career" and a TLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <abbviecareer.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ABBVIE mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <abbviecareer.us> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ABBVIE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Abbvie trenton". Despite the gratuitous reference to "Abbvie" in the registration information, the Panel finds that there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <abbviecareer.us> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses it for a phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to conduct a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in a fraudulent hiring scheme, attempting to phish for personal information including bank account information. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. This disrupts Complainant's business and evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See UBS AG v. SMS Vice/Ubs, FA 1866179 (Forum Nov. 4, 2019) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used the domain <ubscash.com> to disrupt the complainant's business and commercially benefit from the disputed domain name by attempting to impersonate complainant in order to conduct a fraudulent phishing scheme for commercial gain). The Panel thus finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  

 

Complainant claims that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent poses as Complainant in emails, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the usDRP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <abbviecareer.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: April 28, 2024