DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. xian chen / yu li / ge cai

Claim Number: FA2601002202616

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is xian chen / yu li / ge cai ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <abbvie-ma.com>, <abbvie-me.com>, <abbvie-mm.com> and <abbvie-mb.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 January 29, 2026; Forum received payment on January 29, 2026.

 

On January 30, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbvie-ma.com>, <abbvie-me.com>, <abbvie-mm.com> and <abbvie-mb.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 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@abbvie-ma.com, postmaster@abbvie-me.com, postmaster@abbvie-mm.com, postmaster@abbvie-mb.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 24, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

 

The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the physical addresses specified in the WHOS are the same and the disputed domain names were registered during two consecutive days. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA 0133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA 1787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).

 

Consequently, the Panel will rule on all of the contested domain names, and the registrants are collectively referred to as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 50,000 persons worldwide in over 70 countries; the company has well over $54 billion in annual revenues. Complainant has rights in the ABBVIE mark based on its registration in the United States in 2013. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ABBVIE mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and two letters, together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, two of the disputed domain names resolved to websites that displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and invited users to enter their login information. The other two disputed domain names are not being used. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because two of the disputed domain names were used for phishing and the other two are not being used. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark ABBVIE and uses to market pharmaceuticals.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2013.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2025.

 

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

 

Two of the disputed domain names resolved to websites that displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo and invited users to enter their login information; the other two disputed domain names are not being used.

 

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 names incorporate Complainant's ABBVIE mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and two letters, together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See 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 Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) ("[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 on record lists "xian chen / yu li / ge cai" as the registrant names. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.

 

Two of the disputed domain names were used in furtherance of phishing: the resolving websites invited users to enter their login information. This shows that Respondent is not using those two disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See AbbVie Inc. v. Smith John, FA 2197469 (Forum Jan. 28, 2026) (finding that the disputed domain name which was no longer resolving but had previously been used to a page identical to the ones in this case was an attempt to phish for personal information and was not a legitimate use of the domain name or a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also AbbVie Inc. v. shen lei, FA 2192087 (Forum Dec. 29, 2025) (finding "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"). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using those two disputed domain name to make 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).

 

Two of the disputed domain names are not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using those two disputed domain name to make 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). 

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

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 names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, two of the disputed domain names were used in furtherance of phishing. This shows that they were registered and used in bad faith. See AbbVie Inc. v. ZHOU BILI / SHANLAN ASDWW, FA 2107910 (Forum Aug. 20, 2024) (finding bad faith where the Respondent used the domain name to impersonate AbbVie and to phish for personal information); see also McKinsey & Company, Inc., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA 1580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had engaged in phishing, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when the respondent used the disputed domain name in an attempt to obtain Internet users' personal information including their driver's license number and name). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, also as already noted, two of the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panelists have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent's registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith").

 

There has been no response to the Complaint and the WHOIS information is false, see below. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

The WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names includes the following:

Registrant Address1: HongKong
Registrant Address2: HongKong
Registrant City: HongKong
Registrant State/Province: HongKong
Registrant Postal Code: HKG
Registrant Country: Hong Kong

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

From publicly available databases, the Panel has determined that the physical address shown in the WHOIS is not a valid physical address. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept., 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 094724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: two of the resolving websites displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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-ma.com>, <abbvie-me.com>, <abbvie-mm.com> and <abbvie-mb.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 25, 2026