Lonza Ltd. v. Michael Nava / Domain Nerdz LLC
Claim Number: FA2207002004414
Complainant is Lonza Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Jake M Christensen of Greer, Burns & Crain LTD, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Michael Nava / Domain Nerdz LLC (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lonza.xyz>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Sav.com, LLC - 7.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 15, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 15, 2022.
On July 20, 2022, Sav.com, LLC - 7 confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lonza.xyz> Domain Name is registered with Sav.com, LLC - 7 and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC - 7 has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC - 7 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 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2022 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.xyz. Also on July 25, 2022, 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 August 18, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark LONZA registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1955 for pharmaceutical products. Lonza is an invented term used as part of the Complainant’s corporate name and the name of a number of its associated companies. The Complainant owns Lonza.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the gTLD ‘.xyz’ which does not prevent this confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been pointed to a page offering the Domain Name for sale generally for a sum well in excess of registration costs which is registration and use in bad faith. There has been no bona fide offering of services or legitimate non commercial fair use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark LONZA registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1955 for pharmaceutical products.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been offered for sale generally for a sum well in excess of registration costs.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's LONZA mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use for pharmaceuticals recorded as 1955) and the gTLD ‘.xyz’.
The gTLD ‘.xyz’ does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark for the purposes of the Policy.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark points to a holding page offering it for sale for a sum well in excess of registration costs which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015).
The Respondent has not answered this complaint and has not offered any explanation.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark has not been used except for a holding page offering it for sale generally for a sum well in excess of registration costs. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of profit and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
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.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page