Lonza Ltd. v. kerry brown
Claim Number: FA2010001916582
Complainant is Lonza Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Jake M. Christensen of Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is kerry brown (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lonza.me>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 12, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 12, 2020.
On October 13, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lonza.me> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 October 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 2020 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@lonza.me. Also on October 13, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant owns and operates a prominent pharmaceutical and biotech company.
Complainant has rights in the LONZA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <lonza.me> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the LONZA mark in its entirety and adds the “.me” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <lonza.me> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to have any rights in the LONZA mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves a blank page and Respondent uses the domain name in a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <lonza.me> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to display a blank page. Further, Respondent registered the domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business. Finally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to further a fraudulent phishing scam.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the LONZA mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the LONZA trademark.
The at-issue domain name returns a blank page to internet browsers and is used to further an email based phishing scheme.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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”).
The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the LONZA mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <lonza.me> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire LONZA trademark merely adding the generic top-level domain “.me.” Respondent’s addition to Complainant’s trademark in creating the at-issue domain name fails to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <lonza.me> domain name is identical to Complainant’s LONZA trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wicked Weasel Pty Ltd v. Kulich / GS, FA 1604785 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (finding, “The addition of a ccTLD to a registered trademark is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “kerry brown” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <lonza.me> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <lonza.me> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Additionally, Respondent uses its <lonza.me> domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of an email phishing scheme aimed at fraudulently extracting payments from Complainant’s business relations. Respondent sent fraudulent email hosted at the at-issue domain name to at-least one of Complainant’s business relations. The email used the real name of one of Complainant’s employees at <lonza.me> as its author and copied-in other Complainant employees at <lonza.me>. The text of Respondent’s bogus email instructs the recipient, a business relation of Complainant, to remit payments allegedly concerning a refund due Complainant to an account undoubtedly controlled by Respondent. Respondent’s criminal use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Ahmed / My Company, FA 1791549 (Forum July 12, 2018) (“Complainant provides a copy of a redacted email showing a phishing scheme wherein Respondent impersonates Complainant’s employees in an attempt to have customers transfer large sums of money into Respondent’s bank accounts. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”); see also, Time Warner Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, FA1610001700364 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (“Using a domain name for … a phishing scam does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First as mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the at-issue trademark identical domain name to host email in furtherance of a phishing scheme aimed at defrauding third parties into misdirecting funds due Complainant to an account controlled by Respondent. Respondent’s use of its <lonza.me> domain name to attempt to steal Complainant’s identity and thereby convey fraudulent messages to third parties for illegal financial gain disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv), and otherwise. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith). Indeed, Respondent’s use of <lonza.me> as part of the phishing scheme discussed above, in itself, shows Respondent’s registration and use of <lonza.me> to be in bad faith. See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (“The domain name <billing-juno.com> was registered and used in bad faith by using the name for fraudulent purposes.”);
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LONZA mark when it registered <lonza.me> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s long standing trademark and likewise from Respondent’s use of its <lonza.me> domain name in a manner showing that Respondent is aware of the names of particular employees of Complainant and the name of one of Complainant’s business relations, as mentioned above. Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark identical <lonza.me> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lonza.me> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page