DECISION

 

American Pharmacists Association v. IJPS A Pharmaceutical Journal

Claim Number: FA2607002233974

 

PARTIES

Complainant is American Pharmacists Association ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Slaven Jesic of Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, United States. Respondent is IJPS A Pharmaceutical Journal ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jpsjournal.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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 21, 2026; Forum received payment on July 21, 2026.

 

On July 22, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <jpsjournal.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 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jpsjournal.com. Also on July 23, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 publishes the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, a peer-reviewed publication that is widely recognized in the field and is indexed in major scientific databases. Complainant uses the J PHARM SCI mark in connection with this publication and operates a website at <jpharmsci.org>. Complainant owns a longstanding United States trademark registration for J PHARM SCI in standard character form.

 

The disputed domain name <jpsjournal.com> was registered in August 2025. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences - Scopus Indexed International Pharmaceutical Research Publication" that includes prominent references to "JPharmSci" and "Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences." Complainant alleges that the website is being used to impersonate Complainant's publication in support of a fraudulent scheme, collecting publication fees from authors who believe that they are dealing with Complainant. Complainant alleges further that Respondent is the same as or connected with the respondent in a prior proceeding involving similar facts and an identical website, American Pharmacists Association v. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, FA 2194569 (Forum Jan. 5, 2026) (ordering transfer of <jpharmsci.com>). Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <jpsjournal.com> is confusingly similar to its J PHARM SCI mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Because this finding is dispositive, the Panel declines to enter findings as to the other elements set forth in the Policy.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 contends that the disputed domain name <jpsjournal.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered J PHARM SCI mark.

 

The test for confusingly similarity involves a side-by-side comparison between the complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. See UDRP Perspectives, supra, § 1.8; WIPO Overview, supra, § 1.7. Complainant maintains that confusing similarity may be found based upon the use of an obvious abbreviation of a registered mark, citing BOURSORAMA SA v. BRS, CAC-UDRP-103657 (Czech Arb. Ct. Apr. 18, 2021) (finding <brs.contact> confusingly similar to BOURSORAMA). Other terms may also be included in the domain name, as long as the trademark is recognizable within the name. See LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com, D2011-1290 (WIPO Sept. 20, 2011) (finding <legoninjagokai.com> confusingly similar to LEGO). 

 

Complainant makes no assertion of trademark rights in JPS, and there is no evidence that JPS has been used by Complainant or any third parties to refer to Complainant's publication. Cf. BOURSORAMA SA v. BRS, supra (noting complainant's prior use of BRS as an abbreviation for its registered BOURSORAMA mark). Other cases involving initialisms have generally relied upon the complainant's trademark rights in the initialism, rather than a finding of confusing similarity to the full mark. See, e.g., Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Lina Boumediene, D2025-5328 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2026) (finding <lejdd.net> confusingly similar to JDD, where complainant owned trademark registrations for JDD and LE JOURNAL DU DIMANCHE); Massachusetts Medical Society v. Ping Cao, FA 1950390 (Forum July 6, 2021) (finding <nejm.xyz> confusingly similar to complainant's registered NEJM mark); Morgan Stanley v. Stacey Wilson / hsbc, FA 1938103 (Forum Apr. 23, 2021) (accepting complainant's assertion of common law trademark rights in MS initialism for registered MORGAN STANLEY mark, and finding <msfundservlces.com> confusingly similar to MS); Phillips 66 Co. v. ghy, FA 1832449 (Forum Apr. 4, 2019) (finding <p66.pw> confusingly similar to complainant's registered 66 and PHILLIPS 66 marks); Crypto World Journal Inc v. Xiamen Privacy Protection Service Co., Ltd. / Lin Xiao Feng, D2018-1207 (WIPO July 30, 2018) (finding <cwj.com> identical to CWJ, where respondent conceded complainant's common law rights in CWJ, but denying complaint on other grounds); Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Council of the United States v. Alex Yip, D2004-0121 (WIPO May 25, 2004) (finding common law rights in SVDP based upon longstanding use as abbreviated form of SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL U.S.A. ST V DE P, and finding <svdpuscouncil.org> confusingly similar to SVDP). Panels tend not to find confusingly similarity in an initialism where the complainant owns trademark rights only in the unabbreviated form of the mark. See, e.g., BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE v. Domain Administrator, NameFind LLC, D2025-4630 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2026) (finding <bpvf.com> not confusingly similar to BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE, after rejecting complainant's assertion of trademark rights in abbreviated form BPVF); Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd v. Mookstar Media Pty Ltd (ACN 083 167 293), DAU2015-0004 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2015) (finding <etg.com.au> not confusingly similar to EXPRESS TRAVEL GROUP under .au Dispute Resolution Policy); National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States v. Second International Bahá'í Council, D2005-0214 (WIPO May 8, 2005) (finding <uhj.net> not confusingly similar to THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE).

 

In this Panel's view, it requires quite a stretch to consider <jpsjournal.com> confusingly similar to J PHARM SCI. The letters JPS can, and almost always do, refer to many things other than Complainant's publication (including other academic journals, several of which appear to rank more prominently than Complainant's publication in Google search results for "jps journal"). A cursory search of registered United States trademarks reveals several registrations for JPS, none of which relate to Complainant or its publication. And Complainant's own trademark registration disclaims the exclusive right to use "J" apart from the J PHARM SCI mark.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

As the Panel's finding on this element is dispositive of the present dispute, the Panel need not address the other elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jpsjournal.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 13, 2026