DECISION

 

HTL v. FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection / FlokiNET Ltd

Claim Number: FA2507002167785

 

PARTIES

Complainant is HTL ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah E. Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection / FlokiNET Ltd ("Respondent"), Seychelles.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <htlblotech.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2025; Forum received payment on July 25, 2025.

 

On July 25, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <htlblotech.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 July 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 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@htlblotech.com. Also on July 29, 2025, 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 19, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that, since its formation in France in 1992, it has used its HTL and HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY & design marks in commerce in connection with its goods and services. It also owns and uses the official domain name, <htlbiotech.com>. For the past thirty-three years, Complainant has specialized in researching, developing, and producing pharmaceutical-grade hyaluronic acid and other biopolymers. In 2006, Complainant began selling products to be used clinically in a variety of therapeutic areas, including ophthalmology, reconstructive medicine, rheumatology, dermatology, and medical aesthetics. Since that time, it has become the world leader in injectable grade Hyaluronic Acid, providing more than 400 million clinical doses. Today, Complainant has approximately three hundred employees working at six offices across the globe and exports its products to over thirty countries. In 2021, it expanded its physical presence to the United States, establishing HTL Biotechnology Innovation Inc (HTL-BII) in Nutley, New Jersey. The company continues to invest significantly in its growth, opening additional production units to meet customer demand, including in Canton, Massachusetts. It also invests in research and development through its Innovation Portfolio of prospective products. Complainant is an active participant in the broader biotechnology community, attending conferences across the world, supporting biotechnology initiatives, and strategically expanding its reach. Complainant asserts rights in the marks HTL and HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY through their registration in the United States in, respectively, 2020 and 2024 (filing dates, respectively, February 8, 2019 and June 2, 2022). The marks are registered elsewhere around the world and they are well known.

 

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HTL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, while merely adding the misspelled generic/descriptive term "blotech", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). It is also confusingly similar to its HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark, merely adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of the mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and it has been used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, email messages sent from or with the @htlblotech.com address have been used in an attempt to divert payment from a legitimate invoice for more than $30,000 to Respondent's bank account. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent phishing scheme, attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant's mark. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the marks HTL and HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY and uses them to market pharmaceutical-grade hyaluronic acid and other biopolymers.

 

Complainant's registrations of its marks date back to, respectively, 2020 and 2024.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails and to conduct a phishing scheme. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.

 

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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's HTL mark and merely adds the misspelled generic term "blotech" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") to the mark. The addition of a generic or descriptive term (even if misspelled) and a gTLD to a mark is generally insufficient to negate confusingly similar 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."); see also Milliman, Inc v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/Zhichao Yang, D2018-2178 (WIPO, Nov. 17, 2018) (finding that the addition of "benefis", "bennefits", "bnefits", and "benefits" does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant's trademarks and ordering the transfer of <millimanbenefis.com>, <millimanbennefits.com>, <millimanbnefits.com>, and <millimannbenefits.com>); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HTL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name consists of a misspelled shortened version of Complainant's HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY mark, merely adding the gTLD ".com". This is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark 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 recognisable 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."); see also Morgan Stanley v. Nicenic.com, Inc., FA 1368093 (Forum Mar. 5, 2011) (finding <ms-ae-fund.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark; "Previous panels have concluded that where a disputed domain name contains a common abbreviation of a mark, confusing similarity exists"); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Dave Wayman, FA 1963302 (Forum Oct. 7, 2021) (finding "that the element "bstone" in the disputed domain name is intended to be and is likely to be perceived as an abbreviation of Complainant[']s mark" and is thus confusingly similar to the Blackstone mark); see also Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Texas Internet, FA 1330686 (Forum Aug. 3, 2010) (holding <libertymutul.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LIBERTY MUTUAL mark as the respondent simply omitted the letter "a"); see also Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) ("The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, 'titch,' which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter 'w' from the trademark.  In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection / FlokiNET Ltd". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and Respondent is using the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme and it has been used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, email messages sent from or with the @htlblotech.com address have been used in an attempt to divert payment from a legitimate invoice for more than $30,000 to Respondent's bank account. Panels have found such use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 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). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.

 

Further, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in prior UDRP cases. This is sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA 1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent's registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent engages in typosquatting. According to 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), typosquatting consists of registering a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark. In the instant case, the disputed domain name is clearly an intentional misspelling of Complainant's HTL BIOTECHNOLOGY mark. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1970133 (Forum Nov. 24, 2021) ("Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse the misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other reference to the mark holder."); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <htlblotech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2025