Modenatx.com

The timeline behind modenatx.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 Modernatx, Inc. v. Name Redacted Case No. D2026-0509 1. The Parties The Complainant is Modernatx, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented internally. The Respondent is Name Redacted 1 . 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <modenatx.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 6, 2026. On February 6, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 9, 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 a Supplemental Filing on February 18, 2026 to confirm that the registrant contact information disclosed by the Registrar demonstrated the Respondent’s identity theft of an uninvolved employee of the Complainant. 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 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in these proceedings, and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 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 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 19, 2026. The Center appointed Phillip V. Marano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 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 The Complainant is a biotechnology company that develops messenger RNA (mRNA) medicines to treat and prevent disease, with global sales and manufacturing facilities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The Complainant offers information about its goods and services on its official <modernatx.com> website. The Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the MODERNA and MODERNATX trademarks (the “Complainant’s Trademarks”) in numerous countries, including the United States (Reg. No. 4,659,803) and China (Reg. No. 61,415,206), registered on December 23, 2014, and January 14, 2022, respectively. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 27, 2026. At the time of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to parking page and was configured with Mail Exchange (“MX”) records to send and receive emails. 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 asserts ownership of the Complainant’s Trademarks and has adduced evidence of trademark registration, dated back to December 23, 2014. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, specifically the MODERNATX trademark, according to the Complainant, because it is a typographical variant that omits the letter “R”. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on: the lack of any relationship with the Complainant; the lack of any license, permission, or authorization from the Complainant; the lack of any evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name; the lack of any evidence the Respondent holds any trademark rights in the disputed domain names; the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name; the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with MX records, most likely to facilitate deceptive email activity such as impersonation and phishing. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for numerous reasons, including: the fame of the Complainant’s Trademarks; the Respondent’s intentional targeting of the Complainant to typosquat and mimic the Complainant’s official website and <modernatx.com> domain name, which creates a strong risk of implied affiliation; the Respondent’s passive page 3 holding of the disputed domain name; the Respondent’s use of a proxy registration service to avoid detection and frustrate the Complainant’s trademark enforcement efforts; the Respondent’s use of false or fictitious registration data to impersonate an employee of the Complainant; and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connect with MX records, which represent an abusive threat capable of being triggered at any time for impersonation or other deceptive activity. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must establish in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Although the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the burden remains with the Complainant to establish by a balance of probabilities, or a preponderance of the evidence, all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3 (“A respondent’s default ... would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are accurate ... panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.”); The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 (“The Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. The Complainant must still prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a)”). 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. Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the MODERNA (and MODERNATX) trademark has been registered in the United States and abroad for more than ten years (and five years respectively) before the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights in the Complainant’s Trademarks have been established pursuant to the first element of the Policy. The only remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks. In this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark because, disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), each mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. (“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name ... [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar [...]”). gTLDs, such as “.com” in the disputed domain name, are generally page 4 viewed as a standard registration requirement and are disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. Indeed, it is well established that domain names which consist of common, obvious or intentional misspellings of trademarks are considered to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9 (“Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters ... (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers”). See e.g. Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 (“This is clearly a ‘typosquatting’ case where the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of a registered trademark to divert internet traffic ... In fact, the domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark ... with a single misspelling of an element of the mark: a double consonant “s” at the end.”) 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 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 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. Where, as in this case, the Respondent fails to come forward with any relevant evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Based on the undisputed facts and circumstances in the record before it, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. This is especially the case where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a complainant and its products, the very use, by a registrant with no connection to a complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith. The Panel concludes from the record that the Respondent had the Complainant’s Trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent most likely registered domain name in order exploit and profit from the Complainant’s trademark rights. The Panel further finds that the Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because it does not resolve to an active website. Moreover, absent any evidence to the contrary, the Respondent’s mere configuration of the disputed domain name with MX records for email activity does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See e.g. AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v. ZOP LLC, elaa zop, WIPO Case No. D2022-4072 (WIPO, December 28, 2022) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in domain name is parked and associated with active MX servers). Taking into account the overall circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s lack of use of the disputed domain name is a sufficient indication of its lack of rights or legitimate interests. page 5 The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or ii. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or iii. the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or iv. by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating a descriptive term) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (particularly where no conceivable good faith use could be made). WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.1.4. The Complainant has adduced evidence of recognition of the Complainant’s Trademark and cited several WIPO UDRP panel determinations in agreement that Complainant’s Trademarks are considered to be “well-established”, “well-known”, or “famous.” See e.g. Modernatx, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC I Andrew Chen, WIPO Case No. D2022-3189 (finding MODERNA “famous throughout the world”); Moderna, Inc., ModemaTX, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot I Shawn Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-2125; Modematx, Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC I hggfdd bchgugugh, WIPO Case No. D2022-2111. As such, the Panel finds it is unconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s Trademarks, or without any intention to benefit from confusion with the same trademarks. Passively holding a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. This includes domain names that do not resolve to any website content as well as domain names that are parked with a “coming soon” message or other similar content. Where a domain name is being passively held, as alleged in this case, bad faith registration and use exists based upon: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent’s registration agreement). See Id. See also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“A remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the Respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.”) Accordingly, the Panel notes (i) the above-cited cases which demonstrate the Complainant’s Trademarks are “well-known”; (ii) the failure of the Respondent to participate in these proceedings; (iii) the Respondent’s use of a proxy registration service, as well as identity theft of an employee of the Complainant; and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith uses, inclusive of sending and receiving emails, to which one might put a typographical variant of the Complainant’s official domain name. The act of “typosquatting” or registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark in which a party has rights has often been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration per se. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1 (“Particular circumstances UDRP panels take into account in assessing whether the page 6 respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely known mark ...”). See also Paragon Gifts, Inc. v. Domain.Contact, WIPO Case No. D2004- 0107 (citing National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011); ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding that the practice of “typosquatting”, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name). The Panel concurs with this approach. It is evident that the Respondent registered and used the typosquatted disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website linked to disputed domain name in a manner that confuses and misleads Internet users. Thus, the Panel infers the Respondent's bad faith based on the fact that the Respondent is trying to impersonate the Complainant, or gain an illegal profit from mistakes such as typographical errors made by Internet users, when reading or inputting the expression “ModenaTX” instead of “ModernaTX” in a web browser or email address. Where it appears that a respondent employs a proxy service, or purposefully selects a Registrar that applies proxy services by default, merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, UDRP panels tend to find that this supports an inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. Use of a proxy registration service to shield a respondent’s identity and elude or frustrate enforcement efforts by a legitimate complainant demonstrates bad-faith use and registration of a disputed domain name. See Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696 (the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the identity of the real party in interest is also consistent with an inference of bad faith when combined with other evidence of evasive, illegal, or irresponsible conduct). Indeed, the Respondent also evidently registered the disputed domain name using the identity of another party who has no actual connection to the disputed domain name. The use of false registration data in connection with the disputed domain name (and in this case, broader identity theft used to perpetrate fraud) further supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. See, e.g., Action Instruments, Inc v. Technology Associates, WIPO Case No. D2003-0024. Finally, the Panel considers configuration of MX records on the disputed domain name as additional evidence that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is a typographical variant of the Complainant’s Trademarks, and the record is devoid of any evidence to suggest that Respondent has any legitimate interest in sending emails from the disputed domain name. Conversely, Complainant has made a plausible argument that Respondent’s proactive configuration of an email server, creates a risk that Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, thereby using an email address associated with Complainant to try to steal valuable sensitive, financial or other confidential information from Complainant’s clients or employees. Prior WIPO UDRP panel determinations have recognized the same risk, and considered it as additional evidence of bad faith. See e.g. Accor SA v. Domain Admin, C/O ID#10760, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Yogesh Bhardwaj, WIPO Case No. D2017-1225; Carrefour S.A. v. WhoisGuard, Inc / Gaudet Jose, WIPO Case No. DCO2018- 0041 (“The Panel concurs with the Complainant that the connection of the disputed domain name with an email server configuration enhances a likelihood of confusion and presents a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme.”) The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <modenatx.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Phillip V. Marano/ Phillip V. Marano Sole Panelist Date: April 13, 2026

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