The Complainant is Celgene Corporation of Summit, New Jersey, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cozen O'Connor, United States.
The Respondent’s name has been redacted for reasons explained below. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2016. On October 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 1, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 21, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response by November 21, 2016. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2016. The Response was filed with the Center on November 22, 2016 after the Response due date.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products, drug delivery compounds, and related goods and services. The Complainant’s mark CELGENE (the “Mark”) was initially registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on August 22, 2000. The Complainant owns the domain name “” which resolves to the Complainant’s flagship website. The Complainant uses the URL “/careers/” in connection with its website for individuals seeking a career with the Complainant.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 19, 2016. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark, the generic word “careers”, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”. The Complainant asserts the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent was never authorized to use the Mark and has conducted no bona fide business activity utilizing the Mark or the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bath faith to host competitive links related to employment opportunities and potentially as part of a fraudulent scheme to trick job seekers into paying money associated with sham employment process. B. Respondent
The Respondent claims to have no knowledge of the disputed domain name and to be a victim of identity theft. 6. Discussion and Findings
As a preliminary matter, notwithstanding the Respondent’s failure to answer the Complainant’s pre-commencement cease-and-desist letter and the Respondent’s late Response, the Respondent has submitted persuasive and sufficient documentation substantiating the Respondent’s claim that the Respondent is a victim of identity theft and had no knowledge of the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent was a victim of identify theft, had no knowledge of the registration and use of the disputed domain name, and that it is therefore appropriate in this proceeding to redact the actual name of the Respondent. Independent Health Association Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC/[K.A.],WIPO Case No. D2016-1625 (discussion of name redaction cases). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Mark followed by the word “career” and the gTLD “.net”. The word “career” is a generic term, and the gTLD is irrelevant. Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ciger,WIPO Case No. D2011-1675(transferring ). The Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant affirmatively asserts that the Respondent was never authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Respondent, a victim of identity theft, obviously never conducted any legitimate business utilizing the disputed domain name, nor is there any record of the disputed domain name or Mark being used in commerce by anyone other than the Complainant. On this record and for the purposes of this proceeding, the Panel finds there are no Respondent or third party rights or legitimate interests associated with the disputed domain name. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. Henry Chan,WIPO Case No. D2003-0584. The Complainant has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. However, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website hosting a series of pay-per-click links to employment related “opportunities”. Clearly, the actual disputed domain name registrant was quite aware of the Mark and the Complainant’s business and was using the disputed domain name to lure unsuspecting Internet job seekers to the disputed domain name for the purpose of obtaining click through revenues.
Additionally, the Complainant has provided documentation that an email account associated with the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent scheme where job applicants were tricked into paying money in order to engage in a sham employment process. Moreover, the simple fact that the disputed domain name was registered using stolen personal information shows the disputed domain name was fraudulently registered for an illicit purpose. The Panel finds that the totality of circumstances demonstrates that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: December 9, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy