Orbustherapeutic.com

The timeline behind orbustherapeutic.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Orbus Therapeutics, Inc., v. olubori osunkoya, Orbus Therapeutics, Inc. Case No. D2024-1617 1. The Parties Complainant is Orbus Therapeutics, Inc., United States of A merica (“United States”), represented by Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, United States. Respondent is olubori osunkoya, Orbus Therapeutics, Inc., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <orbustherapeutic.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 17, 2024. On April 18, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On April 19, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email to Complainant on April 19, 2024, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant sent an email to the Center on April 19, 2024. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 25, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was May 15, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on May 16, 2024. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2024. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing therapeutics f or rare diseases. According to Complainant, it has used the word marks ORBUS and ORBUS THERAPEUTICS, as well as a logo, for more than eight years “in connection with its business operations, research, treatment development f or rare diseases, and associated clinical trial activities.” According to Complainant’s website, located at the domain name <orbustherapeutics.com>, Complainant “Is dedicated to developing products that treat rare diseases for which there are few, if any, effective therapies.” There is evidence annexed to the Complaint corroborating the allegation that Complainant has used ORBUS and ORBUS THERAPEUTICS as trademarks as early as 2016. Complainant has three pending trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Of f ice (“USPTO”), one f or the word mark ORBUS, one for the word mark ORBUS THERAPEUTICS, and one for its logo. For example, Complainant has f iled an application f or the word mark ORBUS, USPTO Serial No. 98408409, f iled on February 16, 2024, in connection with, among other things, “pharmaceutical preparations f or use in oncology and cancer treatment; human therapeutic preparations for use in oncology and cancer treatment.” The Domain Name was registered on December 16, 2023. The Domain Name has not resolved to an active website. According to Complainant, however: “Respondent used the domain name to send out email communications to unsuspecting individuals, pretending to be Complainant (the “Phishing Scheme”). The Phishing Scheme involved contacting individuals about a fake job posting at Complainant’s business via email. The email purports to come f rom an employee in Human Resources at Complainant. The email is sent f rom ‘[...]@orbustherapeutic.com.’ Notably, the domain is missing the letter ‘s’ at the end of ‘therapeutic,’ but the domain identif ies itself as coming from Complainant (Orbus Therapeutics, Inc.). [...]” “Respondent is using the domain and the Phishing Scheme to obtain personal information from unsuspecting individuals. The job posting identifies Complainant (Orbus Therapeutics, Inc.) as the hiring organization and identif ies an actual employee of Complainant as the contact f or the job posting.” Annexed to the Complaint is documentation of the alleged phishing email scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisf y with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel f inds that Complainant holds rights in the unregistered trademarks ORBUS and ORBUS THERAPEUTICS through use demonstrated in the record, including on Complainant’s commercial website. The Panel f inds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to those marks. Notwithstanding the omission of the pluralizing “s” in “therapeutic,” this typo does not overcome the f act that Complainant’s marks are recognizable within the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the f ollowing elements: (i) bef ore any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of , or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona f ide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the Domain Name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward to dispute Complainant’s serious allegations or articulate some bona f ide basis f or registering the Domain Name. On the undisputed record, the Panel concludes that Respondent targeted Complainant’s mark to impersonate Complainant via a phishing scam aimed at people seeking employment with Complainant. Such a use of the Domain Name clearly is not legitimate and can never confer rights or legitimate interests upon a respondent. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad f aith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily f or the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transf erring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, f or valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. page 4 The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad f aith. The Panel incorporates here its discussion above in the 6.B section above. The Panel f inds, on this undisputed record and on a balance of probabilities, that Respondent had Complainant and its marks in mind when registering the Domain Name. This is clear from the fact that the Domain Name is being used f or an email phishing scam to target people seeking employment with Complainant. This use of the Domain Name f alls within the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), and hence constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <orbustherapeutic.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: May 29, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.