DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. Hernan Diaz / REDACTED

Claim Number: FA2508002173205

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Hernan Diaz / REDACTED ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <alleragan.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

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 August 23, 2025; Forum received payment on August 23, 2025.

 

On August 31, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alleragan.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 September 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 22, 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@alleragan.com. Also on September 2, 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 September 23, 2025, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT/FRAUD – REQUEST FOR REDACTION

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j) all decisions under the Policy are to be published over the internet in-full except that a panel may determine, in exceptional cases, that portions of its decision be redacted. Such an exceptional case exists here. Respondent has clearly used a fraudulent organization name when it registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent, in naming Allergan as its organization, superficially indicates it is connected with Complainant's Allergan subsidiary when it is not. Since Respondent is not connected with Complainant or its subsidiary and since Complainant so requests without opposition, the Panel will redact Respondent's registered organization name where mentioned in the instant decision so that Complainant's subsidiary will not be associated with the findings set out herein adverse to the Respondent. 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant AbbVie Inc. is a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 50,000 persons worldwide in over 70 countries, and the company has well over $54 billion in annual revenues.

 

Allergan was formed in 1948 as a pharmaceutical company and currently markets its products including but not limited to Botox, in around 100 countries worldwide. Allergan was merged into AbbVie in May of 2020 and it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant.

 

Complainant is the owner of the ALLERGAN trademark, which is registered in many countries around the world for a variety of pharmaceutical preparations and substances. Panels have found the ALLERGAN mark to be famous and well-known.

 

The at-issue domain name domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ALLERGAN trademark. The domain name includes a typo of Complainant's mark by adding an "a" between the "r" and "g" in the ALLERGAN mark along with the gTLD, ".com." This is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the ALLERGAN trademark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's ALLERGAN mark, nor has Respondent used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services. The at-issue domain name is currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," as Google Safe Browsing has identified phishing activity on the webpage associated with the disputed domain name which does not does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Additionally, given the fanciful nature of the ALLERGAN trademark, there is no legitimate use that Respondent could make of the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent was familiar with Complainant's trademark when it intentionally adopted a domain name incorporating Complainant's trademark to create an association with Complainant and its products and services. Respondent's registration of the domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Chrome has flagged the domain name as a "dangerous site" which is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Finally, WHOIS information for the domain name was not provided at the time of the filing of the Complaint and the domain was registered using a privacy service. The use of a privacy shield also reflects bad faith and, said again, there is no possible use that Respondent could make of this domain name that would not be in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ALLERGAN trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the ALLERGAN trademarks.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host a website that Google Safe Browsing flags as a "Dangerous site."

 

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 ALLERGAN 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 <alleragan.com> domain name consists of a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's <alleragan.com> mark followed by the generic top-level domain ".com." Under the Policy, Respondent's insertion of a single letter into Complainant's trademark along with the addition of a necessary top-level does nothing to distinguish the <alleragan.com> domain name from Complainant's ALLERGAN trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <alleragan.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ALLERGAN trademark under Policy ¶4 (a)(i). See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, 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. 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).

 

The WHOIS information for <alleragan.com> ultimately identifies the domain name's registrant as "Hernan Diaz - REDACTED" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <alleragan.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <alleragan.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name such that the domain name addresses a web presence that that returns a warning message from Google Safe Browsing maintaining that the <alleragan.com> website has been flagged as a "Dangerous Site." Respondent's use of the domain name for what appear to be malicious activities does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Micro Electronics, Inc. v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., FA2403002090812 (April 24, 2024) ("They contain warnings of potentially harmful software or state that the page is blocked for security purposes. The fact that the domain name has been blocked is persuasive evidence that it has been used for illegitimate purposes such as installing malware, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <alleragan.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

First, Respondent's confusingly similar at-issue domain name returns a message from Google Safe Browsing warning that the domain name's associated website is a "Dangerous Site."  Respondent fails to even attempt to refute such claim and thereby admits by its silence the veracity of Google's warning. Respondent's uncontested dangerous activities demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under the Policy. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Baodan / Jimmy Carter, FA FA2507002164984 (Forum August 7, 2025) ("The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," based on phishing activity identified by Google Safe Browsing….The Panel finds that such passing off and phishing activities constitute disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)").

 

Further, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or upon reading the domain name will overlook the misspelling and subsequently believe the domain name is related to, or sponsored by, the domain name's target trademark. In our case, Respondent inserted an additional letter "a" into Complainant's trademark in forming the <alleragan.com> domain name. Typosquatting, in itself, demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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)); see also, LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA 1579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) ("As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter 'L' for the letter 'K' in the LOCK-portion of Complainant's registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Moreover, Respondent registered the <alleragan.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in ALLERGAN. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from the overt misspelling of Complainant's mark in the <alleragan.com> domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's ALLERGAN trademark further indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 23, 2025