DECISION

 

Lenz Therapeutics, Inc. v. Luis Enrique Reyes

Claim Number: FA2601002201781

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lenz Therapeutics, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Luis Enrique Reyes ("Respondent"), Mexico.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vizzmx.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 26, 2026; Forum received payment on January 26, 2026.

 

On January 28, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vizzmx.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@vizzmx.com. Also on February 2, 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 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the VIZZ trademark based on its ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark on its eyedrop formulation since at least July 31, 2025.

 

Complainant is a biopharmaceutical company based in San Diego, California developing ophthalmic pharmaceutical products to improve vision, and uses the VIZZ trademark on its primary eyedrop solution for presbyopia in adults.

 

It is submitted that Complainant's proprietary eyedrop formulation received FDA approval in the USA on July 31, 2025, after extensive clinical studies and testing, as shown in a press release as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

The launch of the product bearing the VIZZ mark, following FDA approval, attracted an immense amount of media attention including coverage in prominent publications, examples of which are also exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <vizzmx.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the VIZZ mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, rendering the mark immediately recognizable within the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant further argues that the sole addition of the geographic indicator "mx" does not meaningfully distinguish the disputed domain name from the VIZZ mark and merely signals targeting of Internet users in Mexico, a type of modification which Panels established under the Policy have repeatedly found insufficient to avoid confusing similarity—see, e.g., FXCM Global Services, LLC v. Arvie Santorino, WIPO Case D2019‑1657 (geographic suffix "Germany" held not to dispel similarity)

Complainant also underscores that <vizzmx.com> is "identical" to Complainant's own domain name <vizz.com> but for the "mx" addition, reinforcing the likelihood that users would believe the disputed domain is associated with or owned by Complainant.

 

In this regard Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website which Complainant maintains at <www.vizz.com>.

 

Complainant adds that a Google search on January 22, 2026 for the term "Vizzmx Eyedrops" returned results pertaining to Complainant, with Complainant's website <www.vizz.com> appearing first item in the results. Complainant presents as an indicator of its goodwill and reputation and the similarity of the VIZZ mark and the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that

·       Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;

·       Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the VIZZ Marks or any confusingly similar designation; Complainant cites Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000‑0003 (respondent had no rights or legitimate interests because it "was not licensed or otherwise permitted to use" the complainant's mark);

·       as shown in the screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for fraudulent solicitation, luring prospective customers looking for VIZZ eyedrops to Respondent's website at <vizzmx.com>;

·       Complainant refers to the decision in CooperVision International Limited, CooperVision, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Vision Jobs, WIPO Case D2021‑2840 (finding respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests where domain used "for fraudulent solicitation and phishing activities while representing sender as complainants");

·       Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather to divert Internet traffic from Complainant to a copycat website as illustrated by the screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint; Complainant cites Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust, WIPO Case D2006‑0073 (WIPO March 7, 2006) ("Using the Complainant's mark as a domain name to divert traffic to Respondent's own portal site is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name"); and

·       the WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.13.1 ("Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., … impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.").

 

Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that:

·       the disputed domain name was registered with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights after Complainant first adopted and began using the VIZZ mark;

·       actual knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident because of the virtual identity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's VIZZ brand name for its core eyedrop product and Complainant's own <vizz.com> domain name;

·       Respondent's display of Complainant's logo which is the figurative element in its registered trademarks, as well as the VIZZ Word mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows actual knowledge of Complainant and its VIZZ mark and brand.

 

Complainant adds that there is no plausible reason to register the disputed domain other than to exploit the VIZZ mark. In support, Complainant cites FXCM Global Services, LLC v. Arvie Santorino, WIPO Case D2019‑1657 (finding bad faith where the respondent registered a domain comprised of the complainant's FXCM mark with a geographic suffix and mimicked the complainant's website, indicating actual knowledge).

 

Complainant further contends that the registrant of the disputed domain name aimed to take advantage of the value and goodwill in the VIZZ mark, which also constitutes bad faith under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant relies on Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design, Inc., WIPO Case D2000‑1551 (WIPO Feb. 4, 2001) ("actual or constructive knowledge of complainant's rights in the trademarks is a factor supporting bad faith").

 

Complainant again refers to the exhibited screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and argues that the website advertises "Products available for sale," represented as VIZZ dispensers sold in "25‑dose" and "75‑dispenser" quantities, accompanied by purported pricing and references to free shipping across multiple regions. Complainant asserts that these product claims are entirely fabricated.

 

Complainant adds that there is at least one instance where a customer paid for purported VIZZ products and no product was delivered and communications ceased thereafter, as further evidence of bad faith. Complainant cites Afton Chemical Corporation v. Meche Kings, WIPO Case D2019‑1082 (WIPO June 28, 2019) (domain used to impersonate the complainant and fraudulently solicit payment constitutes registration and use in bad faith).

 

In conclusion Complainant argues that Respondent is intentionally creating initial interest confusion by incorporating the VIZZ mark into the disputed domain name and as the address of Respondent's website to attract potential customers away from Complainant's <vizz.com> site. Complainant cites Lyft, Inc. v. Ismail Kantarci / Reftiss KG, FA 1795069 (Forum July 31, 2018) ("Use of a domain name to create initial interest confusion is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)").

 

Finally, Complainant asserts that the exhibited screen capture illustrates that Respondent is use of the site to display links to social‑media accounts falsely adopting or incorporating the VIZZ mark, including to an active YouTube page, is further demonstrates ongoing bad‑faith use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a biopharmaceutical company based out of San Diego, California that develops ophthalmic pharmaceutical products to improve patient vision, which it markets using the VIZZ trademark for which it holds a portfolio of trademarks.

 

Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of an international portfolio of registrations for the mark including:

·       Australian registered trade mark VIZZ registration number 2477436 registered from August 27, 2024 for goods in class 5;

·       Norwegian registered trademark VIZZ (and figurative element), registered on August 29, 2025 for goods in class 5;

·       French registered trademark VIZZ (and figuarative element), registered on November 14, 2025 for goods in class 5.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its primary website at <www.vizz.com> on which it markets its prescription eye drops.

 

The disputed domain name <vizzmx.com> was registered on October 3, 2025,  and resolves to a website that purports to offer Complainant's VIZZ branded eye drops for sale online.

The only information available to the Panel is that which is provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name, the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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 has provided convincing evidence of rights in VIZZ mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks below, and use of the mark on its proprietary eye drop formulation.

 

The disputed domain name <vizzmx.com> consists of Complainant's VIZZ mark and the letters "mx".

 

It is well established that when, as in the present case, a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy.

 

The letters "mx" would be generally perceived as a reference to the code letters for Mexico. The reference to the geographic place name or country name does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark to prevent finding of confusing similarity.

 

Neither does the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> add any distinguishing character. It would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <vizzmx.com> is confusingly similar to the VIZZ mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that Respondent has used each of the disputed domain names to create a website on which Complainant's registered trademarks are prominently displayed.

 

Respondent falsely purports to offer Complainant's goods and impersonate Complainant on the website. The uncontested evidence shows that on the balance of probabilities Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods on the website.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name which consists of Complainant's distinctive VIZZ mark in combination with the "mx" designation for Mexico was registered on October 3, 2025.

 

Complainant's proprietary eyedrop formulation received FDA approval in the USA, and the product was launched under the VIZZ mark on July 31, 2025.

 

VIZZ is a coined word and is implausible that the disputed domain name, which has "vizz" as its initial and dominant element, was chosen and registered by coincidence.

 

On the balance of probabilities, taking the timeline into consideration, the registrant chose and registered the disputed domain name with Complainant's mark in mind within a short time of the product launch and FDA approval.

 

The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the intention of the registrant's was to take predatory advantage of Complainant and its newly acquired goodwill and reputation in the VIZZ mark.

 

The uncontested evidence also shows that Respondent has taken great steps to create a website to impersonate Complainant. There is evidence that at least one unsuspecting customer is known to have attempted to purchase VIZZ branded product from Respondent's website and the product was not delivered.

 

The evidence shows that on the balance of probabilities Respondent's website and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name within the address of the website, is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's websites.

 

In addition, as alleged by Complainant, such use of the mark is intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <vizzmx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: February 25, 2026