DECISION

 

CRISPR Therapeutics AG v. Domains Manager / EgyHosting

Claim Number: FA2512002192023

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CRISPR Therapeutics AG ("Complainant"), represented by Tiffany D. Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domains Manager / EgyHosting ("Respondent"), Egypt.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <crispr-pharma.com>, registered with Name.com, 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 December 1, 2025; Forum received payment on December 1, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <crispr-pharma.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 December 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 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@crispr-pharma.com. Also on December 8, 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 January 5, 2026, 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 it is a groundbreaking biopharmaceutical company focused on creating transformative gene-based medicines for serious diseases. Founded in 2013, Complainant has been an industry leader developing gene editing medicines for the treatment of various rare and common diseases, and CRISPR Therapeutics has become a source indicator symbolizing Complainant's goodwill, high quality, and industry leading status. Complainant first began using the CRISPR mark at least as early as November 2013 and has since adopted and continuously uses the CRISPR mark. Through more than a 12 years of use as a source indicator, and before any date that Respondent may claim, the CRISPR mark has become well known and famous within the biotechnology space symbolizing Complainant's groundbreaking and cutting-edge work. In fact, in October 2020, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Complainant's cofounder Emmanuelle Charpentier with the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for her groundbreaking work on the CRISPR/Cas9 System. When Complainant's founder was awarded the prestigious Nobel Prize, Complainant issued a press release and numerous media and other outlets publicized the award and Complainant's connection to it as well. Applicant participates in numerous industry conferences, in the United States and internationally, and has for many years. Examples of such conferences include the Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, the Citi Virtual Oncology Leadership Summit, the Annual Needham Virtual Healthcare Conference, and the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy Conference, and others. In December 2023, Complainant, in cooperation with Vertex Pharmaceutical, obtained approval for CASGEVY gene therapy for treatment of patients with sickle cell disease or transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (inherited blood disorders). CASGEVY is the first FDA-approved treatment utilizing novel genome editing technology, CRISPR/Cas9. Complainant has also owned the <crisprtx.com> domain name since May 2013 ("tx" is a common abbreviation for "therapeutics") and used the domain name continuously since that time. Complainant asserts rights in the mark CRISPR THERAPEUTICS through its registration in the United States in 2019 (filing date 2018). The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.

 

On December 7, 2020, within a matter of weeks after Complainant's co-founder was awarded the Nobel Prize, Respondent registered the disputed domain name; this was nearly 7 years after Complainant began using the CRISPR mark, 6 years after the use of the <crisprtx.com> domain name, and only a few weeks after the significant publicity around the Nobel Prize.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark CRISPR PHARMACEUTICAL mark because it wholly incorporates the dominant portion CRISPR of the mark, and is only differentiated by the addition of a hyphen, the generic term "pharma" (which stands for "pharmaceutical") and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Instead, the resolving website purported to be "CRISPR-Pharmaceutical", a pharmaceutical manufacturing company engaged in genetic research and the use of CRISPR/CAS9 to create products that were purportedly offered for sale on the resolving website. Its "about us" page attempted to impersonate Complainant and confuse consumers by including information about Complainant's CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing therapy. However the website was merely a façade. Respondent is not engaged in CRISPR/CAS9 genetic research; many of the images, including the purported office building shown on the resolving website are stock images. Respondent appears to be trying to tricking consumers into thinking that the products purportedly offered for sale on the resolving website (like multivitamin, Vitamin D, iron supplement, and cough syrup) are all based on or infused with Complainant's award winning therapies. However, none of these products are "novel therapeutic biologics" or the result of genetic research. In fact, such products could be harmful to consumers to ingest and/or not supported by any sort of research or testing. In addition, the resolving website could be used to phish for consumer information because the web shop purported to offer products that are not available to purchase despite being able to add them to the cart and being able to add consumers' email addresses and personal information.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempted to pass off as Complainant in order to purport to sell products not related to those of Complainant. Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The resolving website could be used in furtherance of phishing. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant's cease-and-desist letter.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark CRISPR THERAPEUTICS, with rights dating back to at least 2019 and uses it to provide gene-based medicines for serious diseases.

 

In October 2020, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Complainant's cofounder with the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for her groundbreaking work on the CRISPR/Cas9 System; this was significantly reported in media around the world.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on December 7, 2020.

 

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

 

The resolving website purported to be that of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company engaged in genetic research and the use of Complainant's CRISPR/CAS9 technology to create products that were purportedly offered for sale on the resolving website.

 

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 the dominant portion CRISPR of Complainant's CRISPR THERAPEUTICS mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the generic term "pharma" (which stands for "pharmaceutics") along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also 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 Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"): "In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity."

 

Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website contained elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site was somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison above.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to identify a respondent per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 Respondent as "Domains Manager / EgyHosting". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website purported to offer for sale products that were not related to those of Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent's commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither 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)."). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no 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, the resolving website promoted products unrelated to Complainant's business. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant's trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA 1543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) ("Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant's business and respondent is likely collecting fees."). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered the disputed domain name shortly after extensive media coverage of the award of the Nobel Prize to Complainant's founder for the CRISPR/Cas9 technology that was referred to on the resolving website. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See GridPoint, Inc. v. Matt Giovanini, FA 1909399 (Forum Oct. 5, 2020) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), opportunistic bad faith may be demonstrated by a Respondent registering a disputed domain name that integrates a distinct or famous mark, around the time of a certain event that creates interest or value in the disputed domain name."); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. harshit dhingaun, FA 1619696 (Forum June 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the contested domain names within days after the announcement of Complainant's sponsorship of India Fashion Week, thus demonstrating opportunistic bad faith in the registration and subsequent use of the domains."). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use 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 <crispr-pharma.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: January 5, 2026