DECISION

 

Valeris, Inc. v. Mike Ross

Claim Number: FA2607002232957

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Valeris, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David E. Bennett, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Mike Ross ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hiring-valeris.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Michael A. Albert and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2026; Forum received payment on July 17, 2026.

 

On July 17, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hiring-valeris.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@hiring-valeris.com. Also on July 23, 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 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Michael A. Albert and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky as Chair.

 

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 domain name <hiring-valeris.com> was registered by the Respondent on April 27, 2026. Complainant, Valeris, Inc, is a life sciences commercialization company providing services across the healthcare value chain, including data and strategic insights, patient support services, and healthcare provider engagement tools. Complainant was formed through the merger of Mercalis and PharmaCord, with the combined company launching under the VALERIS name in May 2025. Complainant provides commercialization solutions to more than 500 life sciences customers and has provided access and affordability support to millions of patients. Complainant operates its principal website at <valeris.com>. Complainant asserts common law rights in the VALERIS mark based on its use of the mark since May 2025 in connection with commercialization, patient support, data analytics, market access and related services in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries. Complainant also has a pending application to register the VALERIS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").

 

Complainant submits that the <hiring-valeris.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the VALERIS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "hiring," a hyphen and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the VALERIS mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent has used the domain name as part of a fraudulent employment impersonation scheme in which Respondent impersonated Complainant's employees in communications with prospective job applicants.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent used email addresses associated with the domain name to impersonate several of Complainant's employees in email and Microsoft Teams communications, and provided counterfeit employment and onboarding documents bearing the VALERIS mark, to lead prospective job applicants to believe that they were participating in Complainant's legitimate recruitment process. During this process, Respondent sought sensitive personal and financial information from prospective applicants, including bank account, emergency contact, professional references, and medical information.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("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 does not presently own a registered trademark for VALERIS. Its application to register the VALERIS mark with the USPTO remains pending. Exercising its limited powers of independent investigation under the Rules, the Panel has consulted the USPTO's publicly available TSDR database and notes that the VALERIS application was published for opposition on August 11, 2026 (see Serial No. 99195259; TSDR printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit 4). A pending trademark application does not by itself establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). However, a complainant need not own a trademark registration where it can establish common law rights in a mark. See Oculus VR, LLC v. Ivan Smirnov, FA 1625898 (Forum July 27, 2015) ("A complainant does not need to hold registered trademark rights in order to have rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and it is well established that a Complainant may rely on common law or unregistered trademarks that it can make out.").

 

Complainant asserts it has common law trademark rights in VALERIS because it has used the term continuously since May 2025 and provides evidence of use of the mark on its website, in advertising and on social media (Complaint Exhibits 5-7).

 

The Panel notes that substantially similar evidence was considered in an earlier UDRP proceeding concerning Complainant and the VALERIS mark. In that case, the three-member panel considered Complainant's evidence of secondary meaning to be "thin at best," but nevertheless concluded, "by the narrowest of margins," that Complainant had established sufficient common law rights in the VALERIS mark. See Valeris, Inc. v. Mayra Guerra, FA 2205224 (Forum Mar. 20, 2026).

 

The evidence submitted in the present case remains somewhat limited. However, in assessing that evidence the Panel may also take into account Respondent's clear and deliberate targeting of Complainant. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.3, "[t]he fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the mark is used on the related website or impersonating documents or other instruments) may also support the complainant's assertion and evidence that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier."

 

Here, the record leaves no doubt that Respondent was specifically targeting Complainant and the VALERIS mark. Respondent incorporated VALERIS into the domain name, impersonated employees of Complainant, and used the VALERIS mark on counterfeit employment and onboarding documents (Complaint Exhibits 9-16). Indeed, Respondent's scheme depended upon prospective applicants understanding VALERIS as identifying Complainant as the purported source of the communications.

 

Taking these circumstances together with Complainant's evidence of use of the VALERIS mark since May 2025, the Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient common law rights in the VALERIS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The <hiring-valeris.com> domain name incorporates Complainant's VALERIS mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "hiring," a hyphen and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Moreover, the term "hiring" is directly associated with the employment scheme for which Respondent has used the domain name and does nothing to distinguish it from Complainant's mark. See Valeris, Inc. v. Mayra Guerra, FA 2205224 (Forum Mar. 20, 2026) (finding <valerishires.com> confusingly similar to the VALERIS mark).

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which, if proven, can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's 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;

(ii)                      The respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      The respondent is 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.

 

As a preliminary point, Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted to use the VALERIS mark.

 

No bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate fair use

The evidence shows that Respondent has used the domain name as part of a fraudulent employment impersonation scheme (Complaint Exhibits 9-16). Respondent used email addresses associated with the domain name to impersonate actual employees of Complainant and contact at least two prospective applicants. Respondent also used counterfeit employment and onboarding documents displaying Complainant's VALERIS mark and used the same in an attempt to elicit sensitive personal and financial information from the targets.

 

Respondent's use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant and its employees and to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").

 

Not commonly known by the domain name

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Mike Ross" and there is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent has failed to submit a Response and there is nothing in the record to rebut Complainant's prima facie case.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth the following nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name:

(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 which 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 the 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, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site 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 web site or location or of a product or service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

Respondent registered the <hiring-valeris.com> domain name on April 27, 2026, almost a year after Complainant began using the VALERIS mark. The domain name incorporates Complainant's VALERIS mark in its entirety together with the term "hiring." Respondent thereafter used the domain name to impersonate Complainant in connection with a purported hiring process.

 

The evidence demonstrates that Respondent was not merely aware of Complainant when registering the domain name but rather specifically targeted it. Respondent adopted the identities of several of Complainant's employees, used the photograph and identity of one such employee in a Microsoft Teams account, provided counterfeit employment and onboarding documents bearing the VALERIS mark, and used email addresses associated with the domain name in communications with prospective candidates (Complaint Exhibits 9-16). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the VALERIS mark when registering the domain name.

 

Respondent's use of the domain name as part of an employment impersonation and phishing scheme is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent used the domain name and the identities of Complainant's employees to induce, or phish, prospective applicants to disclose sensitive personal and financial information, including home addresses, medical and health insurance information, bank account numbers and more (Complaint Exhibits 12 & 13). Such conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Valeris, Inc. v. Mayra Guerra, FA 2205224 (Forum Mar. 20, 2026) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain name was used in connection with a fraudulent employment scheme utilizing emails impersonating the instant Complainant); see also McKinsey & Company, Inc., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA 1580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) ("As the Panel agrees that the circumstances demonstrate that Respondent has engaged in phishing, the Panel finds this behavior to serve as an inference of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith 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 <hiring-valeris.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Claire R. Kowarsky, Chair

Dated: August 24, 2026