DECISION

 

Cencora, Inc. v. John Drill

Claim Number: FA2602002207494

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Cencora, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Eric Endsley of Kuta Rock LLP, Arkansas, USA. Respondent is John Drill ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <us-cencora.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Host Africa (Pty.) Ltd.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On February 27, 2026, Host Africa (Pty.) Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <us-cencora.com> Domain Name is registered with Host Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Host Africa (Pty.) Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Host Africa (Pty.) Ltd. 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@us-cencora.com. Also on March 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 March 24, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant owns the trade mark CENCORA registered, inter alia, in the United Kingdom for healthcare services since 2023.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark containing it in its entirety, adding a hyphen, the generic term 'us' designating the United States and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has not been used for an active site but has been used for phishing purposes to impersonate the Complainant in a fraudulent e mail scheme using the Complainant's Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address and reference "CENCORA INC" in the signature line and the name of one of the Complainant's employees. The credit application made in the fraudulent scheme contained Complainant's business name, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address, tax identification number, and Dun & Bradstreet number. The W-9 form includes Complainant's business name, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address, and tax identification number. The D&B Finance Analytics page references Complainant's business name, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address, Dun & Bradstreet number, and the Complainant's own domain name. The document containing banking details, which did not belong to Complainant, prominently displayed the CENCORA mark at the top of the page, along with Complainant's business name, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address, tax identification number, and Dun & Bradstreet number. This is not a bona fide use of the Domain Name. It is registration and use in bad faith for fraudulent purposes disrupting the Complainant's business.

 

(The Panel notes that the Complainant only submitted the fraudulent e mail not the attachments in evidence).

 

The Respondent has been involved in another prior adverse UDRP decision concerning a fraudulent scheme involving the same named employee of the Complainant and the Complainant's trade mark showing a pattern of bad faith activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the trade mark CENCORA registered, inter alia, in the United Kingdom for healthcare services since 2023.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme using the Complainant's Conshohocken, Pennsylvania address and reference "CENCORA INC" in the signature line and the name of one of the Complainant's employees.

 

The Respondent has been involved in another prior adverse UDRP decision concerning a fraudulent scheme involving the same named employee of the Complainant and the Complainant's trade mark. 

 

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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's CENCORA mark (registered, inter alia, in the UK for medical services since 2023) the generic term 'us' designating United States, a hyphen and the gTLD.com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003)(The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).) Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'us' and a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent e mail phishing scheme impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's mark, name and address and the name of one of the Complainant's employees. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that 'Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use'.)

 

The Respondent has not provided a Response to this Complaint and the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant has not been rebutted.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The impersonation of the Complainant, the use of the Complainant's name, the name of one of its employees and address in the Respondent's fraudulent phishing e mail scheme in this case shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.

 

Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent phishing scheme is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016)(finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).)

 

The Respondent has been the subject of a prior adverse UDRP decision against him involving a domain name containing the Complainant's mark for the same specific fraudulent activity for which the Domain Name was used in this case showing a general pattern of bad faith activity. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA 1558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent's prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(ii) and (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 <us-cencora.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 24, 2026