DECISION

 

AbbVie Inc. v. Abbvie Abbvie / Abbvi

Claim Number: FA2606002228696

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Abbvie Abbvie / Abbvi ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abbvie-global.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 23, 2026; Forum received payment on June 23, 2026.

 

On June 23, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbvie-global.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 June 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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-global.com. Also on June 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 July 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in research. Complainant has established rights in the ABBVIE mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013). The ABBVIE mark is widely recognized and famous. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ABBVIE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely appending the descriptive or generic term "global," along with the most common gTLD, ".com."

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ABBVIE mark. Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor engaging in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, but is instead being used to redirect Internet users to Complainant's website. Furthermore, active MX records are associated with the disputed domain name, enabling the transmission of emails that could facilitate phishing.

 

iii) At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Complainant's ABBVIE mark was already widely recognized and famous. Given that Respondent's website redirects to the official ABBVIE website, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's official website, which amounts to bad faith registration and use. Additionally, Respondent has configured MX records to send and receive emails, which could be used for phishing, further evidencing bad faith. The WHOIS information provided by Respondent is false. This alone is sufficient to establish bad faith under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established its rights in the ABBVIE mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013).

 

3. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant's website.

 

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 asserts rights in the ABBVIE mark based on its registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has furnished a copy of its USPTO registration for the ABBVIE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <abbvie-global.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely appending the descriptive or generic term "global," along with the most common gTLD, ".com." The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as the addition of a descriptive or generic term and a gTLD to a trademark does not negate confusing similarity under the 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 Jurisprudential 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 claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's ABBVIE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Abbvie Abbvie / Abbvi" as the registrant. However, there is no affirmative evidence indicating that Respondent is actually commonly known by the name "Abbvie Abbvie / Abbvi," as opposed to merely registering the disputed domain name using false information to assert rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. See Midjourney, Inc. v. Midjourney Group / The Midjourney AI, FA 2103820 (Forum July 29, 2024) ("the evidence available to the Panel suggests that Respondent, in an effort to wrap itself in an air of legitimacy to give cover to its registration of the domain name, adopted a pair of rough equivalents of Complainant's corporate name, …, and respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name"). Accordingly, 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 redirecting the disputed domain name to Complainant's website in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant cannot be deemed a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that a simple redirection or forwarding of a domain name to Complainant's controlled website does not grant Respondent rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and it cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP. See Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, D2002-0109 (WIPO April 3, 2002) (where the panel found that respondent "has no right or legitimate interest to use an otherwise deceptive trademark . . . even if it is directed to the legitimate owner of the trademark); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Gomez, D2007-1231 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2007) (finding that "the linking of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's commercial website is not a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name" and that the respondent's use "cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name"). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per 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 attempt by any other means 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 creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its ABBVIE mark by registering a domain name that incorporates the mark and automatically redirects users to Complainant's own website.

 

The Panel notes that by redirecting Internet users to Complainant's website, Respondent is obviously targeting and leveraging the value of the longstanding ABBVIE mark. It is well established that such conduct constitutes bad faith. See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also WordPress Foundation v. Berat Berisha, FA 1657211 (Forum Mar. 1, 2016) (bad faith found where the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant's own webpage); see also Amgen, Inc. v. Alan Samuel, FA 1804634 (Forum Sep. 27, 2018) (Respondent's redirection of the disputed domain name back to Complainant's website found to support a finding of bad faith registration and use).

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent has set up an MX record to send and receive emails. While the activation of an MX record merely indicates technical readiness to send and receive emails and may not, in and of itself, establish bad faith on the part of Respondent, considering that the mark incorporated into the disputed domain name is Complainant's well known mark, and that Respondent is impersonating Complainant by redirecting the disputed domain name to Complainant's website rather than using it for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, there is a high probability that the disputed domain name will be used for fraudulent purposes, such as phishing. In light of this, the Panel concludes that such activities by Respondent in association with the disputed domain name disrupt Complainant's business for the purpose of gaining commercial benefits under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known ABBVIE mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel notes that Complainant is a specialty focused, research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 57,000 individuals worldwide in over 70 countries, and the company generates well over $54 billion in annual revenues. Due to extensive use, promotion, and commercial success, the ABBVIE mark had become famous and was well known to countless consumers prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel infers from the fame of the ABBVIE mark and the redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant's website that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name 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 <abbvie-global.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 15, 2026