Senhwabiosciences.com

The timeline behind senhwabiosciences.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Senhwa Biosciences, Inc. v. Gergana Raycheva, Edoms LLC Case No. D2026-0294 1. The Parties The Complainant is Senhwa Biosciences, Inc., Taiwan, China, internally represented. The Respondent is Gergana Raycheva, Edoms LLC, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <senhwabiosciences.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 2026, 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 sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 28, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 10, 2026 by the Center. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 February 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard C.K. van Oerle as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 2026. 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 According to its corporate website “www.senhwabio.com” the Complainant is a pharmaceutical company, that was established in 2012 and listed on the Taipei Exchange on April 24, 2017. The Complainant holds numerous trademarks registrations for SENHWA BIOSCIENCES, among others: - Taiwan, China Trademark Registration, registration No 01859111 (figurative), registered August 1, 2017; - United States of America Trademark Registration, registration No. 87823152 (word mark), registered January 22, 2019; hereafter together referred to, in singular, as the “Trademark”. Until July 16, 2021, the Complainant had registered the disputed domain name and developed and operated its corporate website thereunder. Thereafter, the Complainant migrated its content to another domain name and did not renew the disputed domain name on time. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on October 1, 2021. It resolves to a website in which the Complainant’s Trademark and logo are reproduced, pretending to be the Complainant’s official website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its Trademark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in which the Complainant’s Trademark and logo are reproduced, pretending to be the Complainant’s official website, without the Complainant’s prior approval and authorization, with links entirely unrelated to the Complainant's business. This clearly demonstrates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name improperly, with the intent to gain commercial advantage and to mislead business partners, investors, shareholders, employees, officers, trial participants, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders of the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Since October 2021, the Respondent, after acquiring the disputed domain name, has directly utilized the website content originally created by the Complainant without authorization of the Complainant. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name with the intent to attract business partners, investors, shareholders, employees, officers, trial participants, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders of the Complainant to the Respondent's website or other online locations for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or the products or services offered thereon, thereby misleading users into believing that the Respondent's website or its products or services are associated with the Complainant. page 3 The Respondent was founded in 2014 as Tool Domains Ltd. Around 2019, this company was also involved in domain name dispute with Bulgari S.p.A. v. Tool Domains Ltd (WIPO Case No. DRO2019-0012). In the course of that proceeding, evidence showed that the Respondent expressly acknowledged that it had registered over 600,000 domain names over the years and had been involved in hundreds of disputes. The panel in that case further determined that the Respondent had indeed engaged in bad-faith registration of domain names. The Respondent's conduct in the present case is of the same nature. This is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the registration was undoubtedly made in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the textual components of the Trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the page 4 respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s Trademark. UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed the site of the Respondent to be a copycat site, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which had been registered by the Complainant until July 2021, without having any right or legitimate interest in it. He then utilized the website content originally created by the Complainant without authorization of the Complainant. To this website the disputed domain name still resolves to; it gives the impression of being the Complainant’s website. It is clear beyond doubt that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed that the site of the Respondent is a copycat site of the former website of the Complainant, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <senhwabiosciences.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Richard C.K. van Oerle/ Richard C.K. van Oerle Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2026

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