DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. Alex S

Claim Number: FA2407002109073

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Alex S ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abbviecorps.com>, registered with FastDomain Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2024; Forum received payment on July 31, 2024.

 

On July 31, 2024, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbviecorps.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 August 2, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 22, 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@abbviecorps.com. Also on August 2, 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 August 23, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, AbbVie, Inc., is a Chicago-based biopharmaceutical company that conducts research in multiple countries.

 

Complainant has rights in the ABBVIE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") as well as with other registrars worldwide.

 

Respondent's <abbviecorps.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ABBVIE mark as it contains Complainant's trademark merely followed by the descriptive or generic term "corps" and the addition the ".com" top-level.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <abbviecorps.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Instead, Respondent's domain name fails to resolve to any resource.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <abbviecorps.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent was familiar with the ABBVIE mark when it registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent intentionally adopted a domain name incorporating the ABBVIE mark in order to create an association with Complainant and its services. Respondent's registration, maintenance, and use of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's well-known ABBVIE Mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The domain name does not resolve. The domain name is also associated with an email enabling MX record which might be utilized for phishing. Furthermore, the domain name was registered using a privacy shield.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Respondent has rights in the ABBVIE mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the ABBVIE mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in ABBVIE.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses a webpage stating in part: "Forbidden you don't have permission to access this resource…"

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of the ABBVIE mark with the USPTO or any of its other trademark registrations for such mark worldwide demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <abbviecorps.com> domain name consists of Complainant's ABBVIE mark followed by the descriptive term "corps" and the generic top-level domain ".com" to form the at-issue domain name. Under the Policy, Respondent's additions to Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish the <abbviecorps.com> domain name from Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <abbviecorps.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ABBVIE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and lacks 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. 

 

The WHOIS information for <abbviecorps.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Alex S" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <abbviecorps.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <abbviecorps.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).

 

Respondent uses <abbviecorps.com> to address a webpage stating "Forbidden" and further stating that the visitor "does not have permission to access this resource." The Panel thus finds that Respondent's use of <abbviecorps.com> is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's use of the domain name does not overcome Complainant's prime facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. 

 

Given the forgoing, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <abbviecorps.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent holds the domain name without using it to address any substantive content. When browsed to, Respondent's at-issue domain name displays a webpage refusing access to any resource that might be referenced by the domain name and there is no evidence in the record to substantiate a finding that the domain name is being actively used. Respondent's passive holding of <abbviecorps.com> is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) ("Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE mark when Respondent registered <abbviecorps.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ABBVIE further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 25, 2024