DECISION

 

Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. AM Brodjerdi

Claim Number: FA2601002199026

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Julie A. Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is AM Brodjerdi ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <legal-agilent.com>, registered with One.com 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2026; Forum received payment on January 9, 2026.

 

On January 13, 2026, One.com A/S confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <legal-agilent.com> domain name is registered with One.com A/S and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. One.com A/S has verified that Respondent is bound by the One.com 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 January 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2026 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@legal-agilent.com. Also on January 14, 2026, 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 February 4, 2026, 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 Fortune 500 company and a world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant was formed in 1999 following an announcement by its predecessor, Hewlett-Packard, Inc. Complainant provides laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise. Complainant has secured rights in the AGILENT mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,431,324, registered on February 27, 2001). The AGILENT mark enjoys widespread fame and recognition. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGILENT mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely appending the generic word "legal," a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain ".com."

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AGILENT mark. Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor engaging in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked landing page hosted by the registrar. The existence of MX records for the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent is actively using the disputed domain name to send email communications. This evidence suggests that Respondent likely intends to use the disputed domain name to host email addresses and send emails impersonating Complainant, likely for the purpose of conducting phishing schemes and defrauding Complainant's employees, customers, business partners, and/or other Internet users.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent was not only aware of the AGILENT mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, but also intentionally adopted a domain name incorporating the AGILENT mark to suggest an association with Complainant and its services. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known AGILENT mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name is also indicative of bad faith. Although Respondent has not set up an active website for the disputed domain name, Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to send and receive email communications, as demonstrated by the MX records. To the extent that Respondent intends to use the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of an illegal phishing scheme, such conduct is tantamount to bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 23, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the AGILENT mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,431,324, registered on February 27, 2001).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked landing page hosted by the registrar.

 

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 AGILENT mark based on its registrations in the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the AGILENT mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,431,324, registered on February 27, 2001).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <legal-agilent.com>, is confusingly similar to the AGILENT mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely appending the generic term "legal," a hyphen, and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGILENT mark, holding that the addition of a generic term, a hyphen, and a gTLD to a trademark does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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 AGILENT 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 "AM Brodjerdi." 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).

 

Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The resolution of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark to a parked page does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. Collectively, these factors substantiate the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a Response or attempt by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent's failure to make active use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. As previously noted, Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parked page.

 

The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). see Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use).

 

The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following:

 

i) Complainant is a Fortune 500 company and a world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant's AGILENT mark is distinctive and well known because it has no dictionary meaning, and Complainant owns over 1,200 active trademark registrations for the AGILENT mark, which it has registered in over 160 jurisdictions worldwide. Complainant currently provides laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise, employs approximately 18,000 people worldwide, serves customers in 110 countries, and serves approximately 265,000 laboratories, including major universities, hospitals, and research institutions globally. Complainant's revenues in 2024 exceeded $6.5 billion. Complainant's Facebook page has approximately 282,000 followers, with comparable numbers on X (formerly Twitter). Complainant's LinkedIn page has over 656,000 followers, and Complainant's YouTube channel has nearly 43,000 subscribers and has had over 223 million views. Due to extensive use, promotion, and commercial success, the AGILENT mark became famous and well-known to countless consumers prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Prior UDRP panels have found that the AGILENT mark is well-known and famous;

 

ii) The disputed domain name has active mail exchanger ("MX") records, indicating that the disputed domain name is configured to send and receive email communications. This cannot rule out an inference that Respondent intends to use (or already uses) the disputed domain name to send emails from email addresses hosted by the disputed domain name and pass itself off as Complainant or one of Complainant's authorized representatives in an effort to defraud Complainant's employees, customers, and/or its business associates; and

 

iii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known AGILENT mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel infers from the fame of the AGILENT mark that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AGILENT 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 <legal-agilent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2026