DECISION
Avata Biosciences Holdings Ltd. v. Julian Bryson / Avata Bio
Claim Number: FA2601002200190
PARTIES
Complainant is Avata Biosciences Holdings Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Todd Marabella of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Julian Bryson / Avata Bio ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <avatablo.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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.
On January 21, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <avatablo.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 January 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@avatablo.com. Also on January 26, 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.
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, Avata Biosciences Holdings Ltd., is a biotechnology company focused on developing treatments for diseases using synthetic cannabinoids. Complainant has dedicated significant resources and marketing efforts to develop and promote the AVATA trademark and the Avata brand. Complainant spent more than $100,000 on creating the Avata brand. Complainant invests more than $1,000,000 a year developing its Avata branded products and has been the subject of numerous articles and press releases regarding its innovative pharmaceutical research and developments.
Complainant argues that it has established common law rights in the ATAVA mark sufficient for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, both through its consistent use of the name and by investing substantial sums in developing the mark. As a result of its efforts, Avata has developed substantial goodwill, consumer recognition, and distinctiveness in the AVATA mark which is essential to Avata's business.
The disputed domain name, registered December 03, 2025, incorporates the entire ATAVA mark and is very similar to Complainant's own <avatabio.com> website, differing only by swapping "l" for "I" and the addition of the .com gTLD.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its ATAVA mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <avatablo.com> domain name.
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
A complainant may rely on common law or an unregistered trademark to show rights in a mark. See Oculus VR, LLC v. Ivan Smirnov, FA 1625898 (Forum July 27, 2015) ("A complainant does not need to hold registered trademark rights in order to have rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and it is well established that a Complainant may rely on common law or unregistered trademarks that it can make out.").
Complainant argues it has acquired common law rights in the ATAVA mark. Common law rights can be established by evidence of a secondary meaning demonstrating that the relevant consuming public has come to associate the mark with the complainant. Secondary meaning can be established by a showing of exclusive use of the mark in commerce for a period of time, evidence of advertising and sales, recognition of the mark by customers, unsolicited media attention, or other evidence. See General Motors LLC v. Josh Oliver, FA 1976673 (Forum Jan. 12, 2022). Complainant argues that, for three years, it has consistently used its ATAVA brand to identify its products and events, devoting significant funds to advertising and promoting its goods. Complainant argues the ATAVA mark has become widely recognized among consumers in the United States because of its extensive promotional efforts and the wide acceptance of its goods promoted in connection with the mark.
Complainant has acquired common law rights in the AVATA mark both through its consistent use of the name and by investing substantial sums in developing the mark. As a result of its efforts, Complainant has developed substantial goodwill, consumer recognition, and distinctiveness in the AVATA mark which is essential to Complainant's business.
Complainant argues that Respondent has sought to impersonate Complainant through the adoption of a confusingly similar website containing the AVATA mark to use in connection with phishing schemes to gain the fraudulent transfer of its funds.
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.3 provides, in part:
The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the related website is used) may support the complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the ATAVA mark. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) ("Complainant's demonstration of its common law trademark rights in the GOODWIN mark by showing long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark's having acquired secondary meaning establishes Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").
Complainant argues that Respondent's <avatablo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ATAVA mark because it incorporates that mark completely and differs only by the addition of the misspelled "bio" for and the .com gTLD. This intentional misspelling of "bio", which appears in Complainant's own <avatabio.com> website, amounts to typosquatting, which does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. GRUPO SA Ltd Co / Grupo S.A. Ltd. Co., FA 1985605 (Forum Mar. 30, 2022) ("Many panels have held that minor mis-spellings of complainants' marks constitute typosquatting and support a finding of confusing similarity."). Additionally, it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <avatablo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ATAVA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and 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"). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the ATAVA mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the ATAVA mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the ATAVA mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the ATAVA mark or the domain name incorporating the ATAVA mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:
While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant argues that Respondent has sent emails from the disputed domain name to Complainant's business partners requesting the transfer of funds in an attempt to profit from the operation of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Use of a domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MontaRosa LLC v. Susan, FA 1917090 (Forum Nov. 9, 2020) ("Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant in an email phishing scheme. Passing off as a complainant for phishing purposes is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").
Due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark when it registered the dispute domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S., FA 1890140 (Forum Apr. 24, 2020) ("[W]here a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith."); See also Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama/Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) ("the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith").
The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <avatablo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
February 23, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page