DECISION

 

Abbott Laboratories v. nguyen cong tien

Claim Number: FA2602002206279

PARTIES

Complainant is Abbott Laboratories ("Complainant"), represented by Stephanie H. Bald of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is nguyen cong tien ("Respondent"), Vietnam.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <milkensure.com>, <suaglucerna.com>, and <suapediasure.com> (individually and collectively, the "Disputed Domain Names"), registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 20, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <milkensure.com>, <suaglucerna.com>, and <suapediasure.com> domain names are registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@milkensure.com, postmaster@suaglucerna.com, postmaster@suapediasure.com. Also on February 24, 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 March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant describes itself as a global healthcare leader with businesses and products in nutrition products, medical devices, diagnostics, and medicines, operating across diverse markets and geographies with 114,000 employees serving people in more than 160 countries. Complainant owns the famous and federally registered ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE marks ("Complainant's Marks") identifying its nutrition products, with rights dating back to at least 1973, 2002, and 1987, respectively. Complainant's annual revenues exceed $40 billion, with nutritional product revenues exceeding $8 billion. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations in the United States, Vietnam, and other countries worldwide.

 

Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks because each contains one of Complainant's Marks in its entirety. The domain name <milkensure.com> incorporates the ENSURE mark with the addition of the descriptive English term "milk." The domain names <suaglucerna.com> and <suapediasure.com> incorporate the GLUCERNA and PEDIASURE marks, respectively, with the addition of the Vietnamese word "sua" meaning "milk." Complainant contends that the addition of a descriptive or generic term related to Complainant's products and the ".com" gTLD do not distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from Complainant's Marks, and indeed heighten the confusing similarity.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's Marks, is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, and uses the Disputed Domain Names for commercial websites that pass off as owned, operated, and/or affiliated with Complainant. The websites prominently display Complainant's Marks and logos and offer Complainant's products, including expired products unviable for lawful sale, without any disclaimer of affiliation. Complainant contends that Respondent also fails the four-part nominative fair use test outlined in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent registered all three Disputed Domain Names on July 19, 2024, well after Complainant's Marks became internationally famous. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names for commercial websites that sell competing products using Complainant's Marks and logos, creating a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), and 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns registered trademarks for the ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE marks used in connection with its nutrition products. Complainant's rights in these marks date back to at least 1973, 2002, and 1987, respectively. Representative United States registrations include Registration No. 965,204 for ENSURE (registered July 31, 1973), Registration No. 3,447,775 for GLUCERNA (registered June 17, 2008), and Registration No. 1,475,612 for PEDIASURE (registered February 9, 1988). Complainant also holds trademark registrations in Vietnam, where Respondent is located.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names <milkensure.com>, <suaglucerna.com>, and <suapediasure.com> on July 19, 2024. The Registrar information identifies Respondent as "nguyen cong tien." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or by ENSURE, GLUCERNA, PEDIASURE, or any similar name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Disputed Domain Names resolve to commercial websites that prominently display Complainant's Marks and logos and offer ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE products for sale, including products that were past their expiration dates at the time of the Complaint. The websites contain no disclaimer or disclosure of Respondent's relationship (or lack thereof) with Complainant. "Sua" is the Vietnamese word for "milk." The Panel considers that Respondent's use of Complainant's Marks, logos, and product imagery, combined with the absence of any disclaimer, is likely to confuse and mislead the public as to Complainant's affiliation with Respondent's websites.

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE marks through numerous trademark registrations in the United States and Vietnam, as well as through decades of continuous use in commerce.

 

Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates one of Complainant's Marks in its entirety. The domain name <milkensure.com> combines the descriptive English word "milk" with the ENSURE mark. The domain names <suaglucerna.com> and <suapediasure.com> combine the Vietnamese word "sua" (meaning "milk") with the GLUCERNA and PEDIASURE marks, respectively. The addition of a generic or descriptive term does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from Complainant's Marks; rather, because the term "milk" (whether in English or Vietnamese) relates directly to Complainant's nutrition products, its addition compounds the likelihood of confusion. See Abbott Laboratories v. Smith, FA 2083890 (Forum March 8, 2024) (addition of a generic or descriptive term and gTLD does not negate confusing similarity); Paul Frank Industries v. LiYong Yong, FA 1538923 (Forum Feb. 24, 2014) (addition of a term related to complainant's business heightens confusing similarity). The inclusion of the gTLD ".com" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE marks 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 Names, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "nguyen cong tien," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's Marks.

 

Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names for commercial websites that prominently display Complainant's Marks and logos and offer Complainant's products for sale, including expired products, without any disclaimer disclosing Respondent's lack of affiliation with Complainant. This constitutes passing off and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbott Diabetes Care v. Masocco, FA 2021832 (Forum Dec. 21, 2022) (finding that passing off as complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering or legitimate use); Abbott GmbH v. My Reductil, FA 1317715 (Forum May 5, 2010) (finding that displaying complainant's mark, logo, and product images to pass off as complainant does not reflect rights or legitimate interests).

 

Moreover, even under the four-part nominative fair use test set forth in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO), Respondent fails to establish rights or legitimate interests. Respondent offers expired products unviable for lawful sale, does not accurately disclose that it has no relationship with Complainant, attempts to pass off its websites as Complainant's by using Complainant's Marks and logos, and has registered multiple domain names containing Complainant's Marks. Failure to meet even one prong of the Oki Data test is fatal to a nominative fair use defense.

 

Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names on July 19, 2024, decades after Complainant established rights in its ENSURE, GLUCERNA, and PEDIASURE marks through use in commerce and trademark registration. Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates one of Complainant's Marks in its entirety, and the resolving websites prominently display Complainant's Marks and logos and offer Complainant's branded products. Complainant also holds trademark registrations in Vietnam, where Respondent is located. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See Abbott Diabetes Care v. Polyakov, FA 2011179 (Forum Oct. 10, 2022) (finding actual knowledge from notoriety of complainant's mark and respondent's passing off activities); see also WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.1.4.

 

Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Names and Complainant's Marks and logos to create a false impression that Respondent's websites and products originate with, are approved by, or are otherwise associated with Complainant—while also offering expired products in competition with Complainant's own offerings. This conduct is calculated to attract internet users to Respondent's websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Marks as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, and disrupts Complainant's business. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Abbott Diabetes Care v. Masocco, FA 2021832 (Forum Dec. 21, 2022) (finding bad faith where respondent used domain name to create false impression of affiliation for commercial gain); Abbott GmbH v. My Reductil, FA 1317715 (Forum May 5, 2010) (finding bad faith where respondent directed users to a competing website).

 

Additionally, Respondent's registration of three domain names each containing one of Complainant's Marks constitutes a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fidelity National Information Services v. Sawyer, FA 1578375 (Forum Oct. 23, 2014) ("Respondent's registration of three infringing domain names evidences a pattern of bad faith registration and Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) bad faith").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names 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 <milkensure.com>, <suaglucerna.com>, and <suapediasure.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: March 18, 2026