DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. shen lei

Claim Number: FA2512002192087

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is shen lei ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abbvie-ms.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 2, 2025; Forum received payment on December 2, 2025.

 

On December 2, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbvie-ms.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 December 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 23, 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@abbvie-ms.com. Also on December 3, 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 December 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a global research-based biopharmaceutical company. Complainant holds rights in the ABBVIE mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013). The ABBVIE mark is famous and widely known. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ABBVIE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, followed by a hyphen, the letters "ms," and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ABBVIE mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and create a false association, attempting to phish for personal information and defraud consumers.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, in connection with phishing. Respondent's registration despite knowledge of Complainant's rights in the well-known ABBVIE mark constitutes bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 6, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the ABBVIE mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying Complainant's mark and prompting users to enter username and password information.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the ABBVIE mark based upon its registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted a copy of its USPTO registration for the ABBVIE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013).  

 

 Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <abbvie-ms.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates the mark followed by a hyphen, the letters "ms," and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD to a complainant's mark does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel notes that the letters "ms" may refer to various meanings, such as the postal abbreviation for the U.S. state of Mississippi, the abbreviation for Manuscript, or the abbreviation for Microsoft, the American multinational technology corporation (e.g., MS Word, MS-DOS). The Panel finds that the addition of such a generic term or another company name's abbreviation to Complainant's mark does not diminish confusing similarity, and thus the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's ABBVIE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "shen lei." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The Panel finds that the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays Complainant's mark and contains a page prompting users to enter username and password information, which appears to be an attempt to phish for personal or confidential information from Internet users.  

 

The Panel finds that such fraudulent use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and create a false connection, in an attempt to phish for personal information and defraud consumers, does not constitute a legitimate use of the domain name or a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) ("In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant's mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of disputed domain name to phish for personal information of Internet users was not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name pursuant to Policy).  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to impersonate and create a false connection with Complainant. As noted above, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to obtain personal and/or account information from unsuspecting Internet users. The Panel finds that such false association, passing off, and phishing in violation of Complainant's intellectual property rights constitute bad faith registration and use. See Fossil, Inc. v. www.fossil-watch.org c/o Host Master, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used domain name to phish for personal information from Internet users).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known ABBVIE mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel infers from the website, which prominently uses the ABBVIE mark, as well as the fame of the ABBVIE mark, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <abbvie-ms.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: December 29, 2025