DECISION
AbbVie Inc. v. Handan Yavuz Koksal / TESVIKIYE MAH. HAKKI YETEN CAD. VITAL FULYA PLAZA NO23 KAT26
Claim Number: FA2506002159444
PARTIES
Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Handan Yavuz Koksal / TESVIKIYE MAH. HAKKI YETEN CAD. VITAL FULYA PLAZA NO23 KAT26 ("Respondent"), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <harmonycaturkiye.com>, registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 6, 2025; Forum received payment on June 6, 2025.
On June 10, 2025, Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <harmonycaturkiye.com> domain name is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. 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 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Turkish and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 2025 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@harmonycaturkiye.com. Also on June 12, 2025, the Turkish and English 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 in Turkish and English.
On July 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the Domain Name is written in the Turkish language. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Complaint in Turkish and English and served the Written Notice in Turkish and English the question therefore arises whether the proceeding as a whole should be conducted in Turkish or English. It is established practice when considering this issue to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as important include evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name, the content on any web pages resolving from the domain name, prior correspondence between the parties, and potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision into the language of the registration agreement. See Fair Isaac Corporation v. AKPOVO Chidiac, FA 2034648 (Forum Apr. 12, 2023), Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. wang xing xing, FA 2035248 (Forum Apr. 11, 2023), United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. MEHKMET ISYAN AYIRKAN, FA 2035819 (Forum Apr. 11, 2023) and POC Sweden AB d/b/a POC North America v. Ma Fanghua, FA 2034043 (Forum Apr. 4, 2023) as example of the application of those principles by panels in this field.
In the present proceeding, the domain name is in English, as is the HARMONYCA trademark and virtually the entirety of the resolving website. The website recites its promotion of certain products in English and in the case of the one instance of the use of the Turkish language, that statement in Turkish is explained or defined in English, indicating that the Respondent's intention was that Turkish-reading users would also need to have the message set out in the English language. Indeed, the extensive English on the website is not merely formal English but colloquial and popular English, where expressions like "Hybrid Filling Miracle" and "dual-effect filler technology" are used, and without any Turkish equivalent. Moreover, the Respondent makes it plain that when it wishes to have contact with potential customers, it prefers the user to contact it by the expressions "Write to us" to ask for an appointment and "Do you have any questions?"; it also provides is email address in English and is clearly aiming at obtaining business from English-speaking users. Thus, it is clear from the extensive use of English on the website that it is being directed at English- speaking users and that it regards them as an essential element of its business. Moreover, it is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant, a United States company and its potential customers who would primarily be English-speaking and the panel agrees. These examples lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent has a good and working knowledge of the English language.
It should also be said that there would inevitably be a considerable cost and time involved in translating the papers and the proceedings into Turkish if English were not the language of the proceeding.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that English is the more appropriate language in which to conduct the proceeding and it so orders.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged, including through its subsidiary Allergan, as a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company producing many products including Botox and has been so engaged since 1948.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for HARMONYCA. The evidence will establish that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the HARMONYCA trademark as a consequence of the registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registered Number 6816768, registered on August 16, 2022 and numerous other registrations for HARMONYCA domestically and internationally, including the HARMONYCA trademark in Turkey, via WIPO, registered Number 1392993, registered on August 17, 2018 (collectively "the HARMONYCA trademark").
3. The Complainant uses the HARMONYCA trademark to offer its goods and services and has done so for many years.
4. The HARMONYCA trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
5. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <abbvie.com> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.abbvie.com, where it markets its aforesaid products under the HARMONYCA trademark and brand.
6. The Respondent registered the <harmonycaturkiye.com> domain name on September 4, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant established its aforesaid trademark rights.
7. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the HARMONYCA trademark, with the addition of the geographic indicator "turkiye" which signifies Turkiye and the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com".
8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HARMONYCA trademark.
9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:
(a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the HARMONYCA mark;
(b) the Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant to use the HARMONYCA trademark, is not an authorized vendor, supplier, license or distributor of Complainant's goods and services and is not affiliated with Complainant in any way;
(c) in its use of the domain name, the Respondent is passing itself off as the Complainant;
(d) the Respondent has caused the domain name to be used to promote the Complainant's HARMONYCA products in Turkey;
(e) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);
(f) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(g) the Respondent has used the domain name, incorporating as it does, the HARMONYCA trademark and logo for what appears to be an official or licensed HARMONYCA website which was calculated to give the false impression to internet users that the site is associated with the Complainant, which it is not; and
(h) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:
(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and its aforesaid trademark when it registered the domain name;
(b) the foresaid conduct of the Respondent was calculated to give the false impression of an association or affiliation with the Complainant and its trademark, making it clear that the Respondent has sought to benefit commercially from the Complainant's well-established goodwill;
(c) the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name was privacy shielded at the time of the filing of the Complaint, which indicates bad faith; and
(d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for HARMONYCA. The evidence has established that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the HARMONYCA trademark as a consequence of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registered Number 6816768, registered on August 16, 2022 and numerous other registrations for HAMONYCA domestically and internationally, including the HARMONYCA trademark in Turkey, via WIPO, registered Number 1392993, registered on August 17, 2018 (collectively "the HARMONYCA trademark").
3. The Respondent registered the <harmonycaturkiye.com domain name on September 4, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant established its aforesaid trademark rights.
4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to be a genuine website of the Complainant, showing that the Respondent targeted the Complainant, its customers and internet users, passed itself of as the Complainant, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, and sought to mislead internet users to believe that the products offered on its website were genuine and authorized products of the Complainant which it was authorized to sell.
5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HARMONYCA trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
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 the 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 as 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for HARMONYCA. The evidence has established that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the HARMONYCA trademark as a consequence of the registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registered Number 6816768, registered on August 16, 2022 and numerous other registrations for domestically and internationally, including the HARMONYCA trademark in Turkey, via WIPO, registered Number 1392993, registered on August 17, 2018 (collectively "the HARMONYCA trademark"). The registrations are in the name of Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited which is a subsidiary of the Complainant, thus giving the Complainant its rights in the trademark. All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.
The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's HARMONYCA trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HARMONYCA trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the HARMONYCA trademark, with the addition of the geographic indicator "turkiye" which signifies Turkiye and the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com".
When a domain name includes a trademark, as in the present case, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. In the present case it is obviously so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the HARMONYCA trademark and the goods and services offered under it, making the domain name similar to the trademark and confusingly so, because it raises the question whether the domain name is an official and genuine domain name of the Complainant or not. The addition of the word "turkiye" would be interpreted by internet users to mean that the domain name relates to the goods and services of the Complainant provided under its trademark in Turkiye. The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in making the comparison because all domain names must have such an extension.
Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HARMONYCA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:
(a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; there is no evidence that the Respondent is so known and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own, which is Handan Yavuz Koksal / TESVIKIYE MAH. HAKKI YETEN CAD. VITAL FULYA PLAZA NO23 KAT26;
(b) the Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant to use the HARMONYCA trademark, is not an authorized vendor, supplier, license or distributor of Complainant's goods and services and is not affiliated with Complainant in any way; thus, it could not be shown that the domain name was registered or used with any form of consent, express or implied, by the Complainant;
(c) the evidence shows that the Respondent has in the registration and use of the domain name sought to pass itself off as the Complainant by implying that it is the Complainant or is authorized by it; no other conclusion can be reached when it is seen that the Respondent has, on its website, made extensive use of the expression HARMONYCA, claimed by use of the ™ symbol that it has a trademark in that expression, makes the statement "© 2024 | HArmonyCA Türkiye", claims that its products are "Developed by Allergan, one of the world's leading brands" and promotes products that are the same as the Complainant's genuine products; by all of these criteria and the general ambiance of the site, the Respondent is clearly passing itself off as the Complainant;
(d) the Respondent has caused the domain name to be used to promote the Complainant's HARMONYCA products in Turkey; this is readily apparent from the evidence in Exhibit F of the contents of the website to which the domain name resolves;
(e) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); this is very apparent from the evidence just referred to; moreover, there is nothing bona fide in the Respondent's helping itself to the Complainant's trademark and generating the subterfuge that it is or is authorized by the Complainant and that it is selling and is authorized to sell the Complainant's products in Turkiye;
(f) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate in the Respondent's conduct; it is clearly commercial as it is clearly being perpetrated to make money and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users in general;
(g) the Respondent has used the domain name, incorporating as it does, the HARMONYCA trademark and logo for what appears to be an official or licensed HARMONYCA website which was calculated to give the false impression to internet users that the site was associated with the Complainant when it was not; this has already been shown by the evidence;
(h) moreover, by the blandishments of "Write to us" to ask for an appointment and "Do you have any questions?", shown above in the Language section of this decision, the Respondent has clearly embarked on a phishing expedition designed to obtain personal and financial information from users who find their way to its website; and
(i) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it.
The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration; the registration was clearly an attempt to use the Complainant's trademark improperly and to offer retail sales of products that give the impression that they were genuine products of the Complainant and that they were being sold by the Complainant or with its permission, which was deceptive; it is equally clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the domain name in bad faith in the deception of internet users, amply demonstrated by the evidence referred to above in Exhibit F. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:
(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, it business and its aforesaid trademark when it registered the domain name; the Complainant, Allergan and HARMONIKA are all well known and it is impossible to believe that the Respondent did not know of them; the Panel finds that the Respondent targeted them; indeed, it was pivotal to the Respondent's subterfuge that it knew of them and it could not have perpetrated this scheme if it did not have actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark and brands;
(b) the evidence shows that the foresaid conduct of the Respondent was calculated to give the false impression of an association or affiliation with the Complainant and its trademark, making it clear that the Respondent has sought to benefit commercially from Complainant's well-established goodwill; this has been well-established by the evidence;
(c) the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name was privacy shielded at the time of the filing of the Complaint, which indicates bad faith; this has long been regarded as an indicia of bad faith; and
(d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; in particular, they show that the Respondent's conduct was calculated to cause disruption to the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and to cause confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the HARMONYCA trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant, its customers and internet users in general, passed itself of as the Complainant, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, and sought to mislead internet users to believe that the products offered on its website were genuine and authorized products of the Complainant which it was authorized to sell.
The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
The Complainant has also cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.
The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <harmonycaturkiye.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,
Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page