DECISION

 

Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS v. Volf Vladimir

Claim Number: FA2606002224925

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Volf Vladimir ("Respondent"), Unknown.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <juvederm.site>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 3, 2026, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <juvederm.site> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 June 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 25, 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@juvederm.site. Also on June 5, 2026, the Russian and English 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 in Russian and English.

 

On June 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

On June 29, 2026, the Panel issued an Additional Submission Order to Complainant concerning the issues of standing and proof of trademark rights. On the same date, Complainant timely filed its Additional Submission.

 

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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Russian, thereby making Russian the default language of the proceeding.

 

Complainant asserts that because Respondent understands English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceeding, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the case. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement, because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name contains the full, well-known trademark JUVEDERM in English, followed by the English word "site." Furthermore, it would be unfair to Complainant to require it to conduct this proceeding in Russian. Complainant also highlights that the disputed domain name is listed for sale, and the listing is entirely in English.

 

Given the absence of a Response, even after the issuance of the Russian Commencement Notification, and the lack of objection to Complainant's request, the Panel, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) and after considering the circumstances of the present case, decides that English shall be the language of the proceeding and that the remainder of the proceeding shall be conducted in English.

 

MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

There are two Complainants in this matter: Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS. Complainants argue that Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS (collectively, "Allergan") are both wholly owned subsidiaries of AbbVie Inc. ("AbbVie"). In May 2020, both Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS were acquired by AbbVie Inc., becoming its subsidiaries. Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS own the JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks in various jurisdictions.

 

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

"It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) ("This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.").

 

The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between Complainants, and thus it treats them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Throughout the decision, Complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is a specialty-focused, research-based biopharmaceutical company. Since the FDA first approved the JUVÉDERM dermal filler in 2006, the product has become one of the most popular non-surgical aesthetic treatments around the world. Millions of people around the world have used JUVÉDERM. Complainant owns rights in the JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks in various jurisdictions, inter alia, through its registrations of the marks with the USPTO for the mark JUVEDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 3,706,974, registered November 3, 2009, in Class 5) and for the mark JUVÉDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 4,933,963, registered April 5, 2016, in Class 10). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JUVEDERM mark, which differs only by the addition of the ".site" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent's identity is unknown. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the JUVEDERM mark. Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor engaging in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Specifically, the disputed domain name remains inactive, but instead is being offered for sale, which evidences a lack of any rights or legitimate interests.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JUVEDERM mark when it acquired the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. Respondent's non-use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith. Acquiring the disputed domain name containing Complainant's famous JUVEDERM trademark in order to sell it does not constitute a legitimate interest or bona fide use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

On June 29, 2026, the Panel issued an Additional Submission Order to Complainant concerning the issues of standing and proof of trademark rights. On the same date, Complainant timely filed its Additional Submission.

 

The Panel's Additional Submission Order noted the alleged May 2020 merger of Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS into AbbVie Inc., and directed Complainant to clarify the current corporate status of these entities. Complainant was further ordered to submit proof of the merger, evidence of current trademark status, and an amended Complaint naming AbbVie Inc. as Complainant if the original entities are defunct.

 

In its Additional Submission, Complainant corrected the factual oversight, clarifying that Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Holdings France SAS were acquired by, rather than merged into, AbbVie Inc. Complainant provided documentary evidence, including trademark registry extracts and AbbVie Inc.'s annual report, demonstrating that both entities remain active, surviving subsidiaries and the registered owners of the relevant marks. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently addressed the deficiencies raised in the Additional Submission Order.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 26, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks in various jurisdictions, inter alia, through its registrations of the marks with the USPTO for the mark JUVEDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 3,706,974, registered November 3, 2009, in Class 5) and for the mark JUVÉDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 4,933,963, registered April 5, 2016, in Class 10).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to an error page.

 

4. The WHOIS Database shows a Broker Service Fee of $99.99 for the disputed 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 Overview 3.1 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 asserted rights in the JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks in various jurisdictions, inter alia, through its registrations of the marks with the USPTO for the mark JUVEDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 3,706,974, registered November 3, 2009, in Class 5) and for the mark JUVÉDERM (e.g., Reg. No. 4,933,963, registered April 5, 2016, in Class 10).

 

Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes sufficient evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided the requisite trademark registrations, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <juvederm.site>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's JUVEDERM and JUVÉDERM marks, as it differs only by the addition of the ".site" gTLD. The incorporation of an entire trademark and the addition of a gTLD do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Volf Vladimir" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an error page. The resolution of a disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's long-established trademark, to an inactive page fails to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. Collectively, these factors substantiate the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a response or otherwise attempt to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent's failure to make active use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. As previously noted, Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to an error page.

 

The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use).

 

The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following:

 

i) Complainant currently markets its products, including but not limited to the well-known JUVÉDERM product, in approximately 175 countries worldwide. Since the FDA first approved the JUVÉDERM dermal filler in 2006, the product has become one of the most popular non-surgical aesthetic treatments around the world. Millions of people around the world have used JUVÉDERM. Complainant became a subsidiary of AbbVie Inc., a specialty-focused, research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 57,000 persons worldwide in over 70 countries with well over $54 billion in annual revenues. Therefore, Complainant's JUVÉDERM mark has become well-known in the relevant industries;

 

ii) The WHOIS Database shows a Broker Service Fee of $99.99 for the disputed domain name; and

 

iii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name decades after Complainant's rights in the JUVÉDERM marks first arose and were registered with the USPTO, and thus Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JUVÉDERM marks when it registered the disputed domain name.

 

While UDRP precedent does not recognize constructive knowledge alone as a basis for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge may suffice to support such a finding under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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 AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).).

 

As noted above, Complainant has been using its marks since 2006, becoming a leading manufacturer and supplier of the JUVÉDERM dermal filler, which has become one of the most popular non-surgical aesthetic treatments; thus, Complainant's JUVÉDERM mark had become well-known within the relevant industries and among consumers prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore infers from the notoriety of Complainant's marks, and Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration, supporting a finding of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 <juvederm.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2026