Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. v. Peter Idjogbe
Claim Number: FA2302002031815
Complainant is Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Peter Idjogbe (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shireeuropefinance.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc..
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 Forum electronically on February 14, 2023; Forum received payment on February 14, 2023.
On February 15, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 February 20, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2023 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@shireeuropefinance.com. Also on February 20, 2023, 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 March 20, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., offers pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products and services in the international marketplace.
Complainant asserts rights in the SHIRE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other international trademark agencies.
The <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the at-issue domain name includes the SHIRE mark in its entirety with the addition of the words “Europe finance” as well as the addition of the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name in an attempt to deceive internet users. Respondent also uses the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SHIRE Mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the SHIRE mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the SHIRE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and facilitate fraud.
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 confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration, or any of its other national trademark registration for its SHIRE mark, sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Teleflex Incorporated v. Leisa Idalski, FA 1794131 (Forum July 31, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with governmental trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s SHIRE trademark followed by the terms “europe” and “finance” with all followed by the “.com” top level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name and Complainant’s SHIRE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHIRE trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
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 trademarks 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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”)
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Peter Idjogbe” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name addresses a website that purports to offers various financial services including loan processing while operating using the same physical address and contact information that is listed on Complainant’s SHIRE EUROPE FINANCE business registration. Respondent’s financial service offerings appear to be fraudulent. Notably, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and defraud third-parties constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also, H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“A complainant can use assertions of passing off and offering competing goods or services to evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present that allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website posing as Complainant’s genuine website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and offer fraudulent financial services. Respondent’s use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and capitalizes on the confusion Respondent created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s marks. Respondent’s use of <shireeuropefinance.com> thereby demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Moreover, Respondent registered its <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the SHIRE trademark. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in SHIRE is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to address a website pretending to be sponsored by Complainant. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's SHIRE trademark further establishes Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy. 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 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 <shireeuropefinance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page