DECISION

 

AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie AB v. jingbing shen

Claim Number: FA1806001789854

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie AB ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is jingbing shen ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <duopa.club>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 the Forum electronically on June 1, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 1, 2018.

 

On June 4, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <duopa.club> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 June 6, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 26, 2018 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@duopa.club. Also on June 6, 2018, 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 June 27, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a pharmaceutical company that employs approximately 29,000 people in more than 70 countries, with over $25 billion in annual sales. In 2015 Complainant announced that the FDA had approved a new treatment for Parkinson's disease called DUOPA (carbidopa and levodopa). Complainant owns a U.S. trademark registration for DUOPA, issued in 2015.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <duopa.club> in May 2018. The domain name is being used to redirect Internet users to a commercial website containing sexually explicit material. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the DUOPA mark or affiliated with Complainant, has not been licensed to use the mark, and is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <duopa.club> is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the 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 identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <duopa.club> appends the ".club" top-level domain to Complainant's registered DUOPA mark. For purposes of the Policy, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Fabio Martinez Salinas / Fabio Martinez, FA 1695420 (Forum Oct. 31, 2016) (finding <toshiba.club> identical to TOSHIBA). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered DUOPA mark, and its only apparent use has been to redirect Internet users to a commercial website containing explicit material. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Fabio Martinez Salinas / Fabio Martinez, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name corresponding to mark was used to redirect users to commercial websites displaying adult content and promoting escort services).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

 

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name that corresponds to Complainant's mark, and is using it to redirect Internet users to an unrelated commercial website. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Fabio Martinez Salinas / Fabio Martinez, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <duopa.club> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 2, 2018

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page