DECISION

 

Abbott Laboratories v. Bruce Goff / abottinc

Claim Number: FA2607002232029

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Abbott Laboratories ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Bruce Goff / abottinc ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abottinc.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026.

 

On July 10, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abottinc.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 July 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@abottinc.com. Also on July 14, 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 August 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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

Complainant is a diversified global healthcare company, doing business under the name, ABBOTT, in which it claims trademark rights. It submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it is not known by the domain name; has not been authorized to use the trademark; and does it use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website but has been used to send emails as part of scheme to defraud Complainant's vendors.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and used it in bad faith for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,724,557, registered on December 15, 2009, for the trademark, ABBOTT;

2.       Respondent registered the domain name on May 7, 2026; and

3.       the domain name does not link to an active website but has been used as part of an email address which poses as that of an employee of Complainant.

 

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. 

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in ABBOTT since it provides proof of its registration of that mark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

 

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") recognises at #1.9 that a domain name consisting of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a complainant's trademark is usually considered to be confusingly similar to that mark. Here, once the gTLD is disregarded, the domain name is an obvious misspelling of the trademark, in combination with a common abbreviation, "inc".  The trademark remains well recognizable despite the alteration and addition (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) holding that the gTLD can be disregarded; Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) holding that the absence of spaces can be ignored under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them; Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) finding <morganstanle.com> confusingly similar to the complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark; AbbVie Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico FA 2087639 (Forum April 16, 2024) finding <allergaen.com> confusingly similar to the complainant's ALLERGAN trademark).

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no trademark rights and the Panel accepts Complainant's submission that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark. The evidence accompanying the Complaint supports the claim that the domain name has been used for an illegitimate purpose, attempting to deceive Complainant's vendors.

 

There has been no bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name, and the Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use."); AbbVie, Inc. v. Shiela Lego, FA 1874733 (Forum Jan. 5, 2020) finding use of the domain <abbvie-careers.com> to send fraudulent emails purporting to recruit employees for Complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The four scenarios are:

 

'(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct in linking the domain name to a confusingly similar email address falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The manifest intention was commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent had intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location (see, for example, BBY Solutions, Inc. v. geeks squad, FA 1920588 (Forum Dec. 14, 2020) finding 4(b)(iv) of the Policy satisfied where respondent used the domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark, either that of being the complainant or having an affiliation with the complainant).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <abottinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: August 5, 2026