Westmore · UDRP DecisionRegeneroncareer.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <regeneroncareer.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s coined REGENERON trademark because it incorporated the mark in full with the descriptive word “career.” The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which was not rebutted. Bad faith registration and use were found from the incorporation of the long-used coined mark, false WhoIs contact details, the unavailable website, and the absence of any conceivable legitimate use other than by or under the Complainant’s authority.
The timeline behind regeneroncareer.net
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind regeneroncareer.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining a coined pharmaceutical mark with the word “career” can create an apparent official recruitment association even without active website content. It also shows the combined significance of false registrant information, longstanding rights in a coined mark, respondent default, and passive or unavailable use in the bad-faith analysis.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Name Redacted Case No. D2015-0728 1. The Parties The Complainant is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (“Complainant”), Inc. of Tarrytown, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <regeneroncareer.net> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 28, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 18, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 19, 2015. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2015. 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 Complainant is a company involved in the research and development of pharmaceutical products. Complainant was founded in 1988 and has used the REGENERON mark in commerce since that time. Complainant owns several REGENERON trademarks issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), which registrations date back to as early as August 1991. Complainant has advertised the REGENERON marks extensively for years. The actual identity of Respondent is unknown to Complainant. The underlying registrant as disclosed by the Registrar lists one of Complainant’s employees as the registrant of record of the disputed domain name, and shows an address reflecting Complainant’s contact information; however, according to Complainant, the named employee is not the actual registrant of the disputed domain name. Complainant states in this regard that the information displayed in the publicly available WhoIs is falsified. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to act for it or to use its mark in any way. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 18, 2014. The disputed domain name consists of the coined word “regeneron” which corresponds exactly to Complainant’s trademark and the English word “career.” The disputed domain name resolves to a web page that gives the message “Web page unavailable.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its REGENERON trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall 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 directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, (2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s coined trademark REGENERON to which the English word “career” has been appended. The combination suggests that the web site was created for the purpose of recruiting prospective employees in the field of pharmaceutical research and development for jobs with Complainant. It is well established that the addition of such a descriptive term to an established trademark to form a domain name results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view of WIPO UDRP panelists concerning the burden of establishing no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name is as follows: While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview, 2.0”), Section 2.1 . In the present case Complainant alleges and has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name resolves to a web site at which it is stated that “[t]he web site is unavailable.” Respondent has registered the disputed domain name using false WhoIs contact details. The disputed domain name includes the coined term “regeneron” which corresponds to Complainant’s REGENERON trademark, which had been in use and had been registered with the USPTO for more than twenty-five years before the domain name at issue was registered. Just as in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 , there is no conceivable legitimate use of the coined term “regeneron” other than by or under the authority of Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. 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 <regeneroncareer.net> be transferred to Complainant. M. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: May 28, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around regeneroncareer.net
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.