Modernallc.net

The timeline behind modernallc.net

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. MODERNA LLC, modernallc Case No. D2026-2471 1. The Parties The Complainant is Modernatx, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), internally represented. The Respondent is MODERNA LLC, modernallc, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <modernallc.net> 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 June 8, 2026. On June 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 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 (Name Unknown / Not Disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 10, 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 June 11, 2026. 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 June 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2026. The Center appointed Raj Sachdev as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant was established in 2010, is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, and operates in the biotechnology industry. It develops messenger RNA (mRNA) medicines including for COVID-19 and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). It has a global manufacturing footprint including facilities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Its 2024 reported product sales were approximately USD 3.1 billion. It operates its corporate site at the domain name <modernatx.com>. Complainant holds numerous registrations of the MODERNA mark around the world and has supplied a list of such registrations. This includes but is not limited to United States Registration No. 4659803, registered on December 23, 2014; United States Registration No. 4675783, registered on January 20, 2015; United States Registration No. 4811834 registered on September 15, 2015; and United States Registration No. 5543197 dated August 21, 2018. The disputed domain name was registered on October 30, 2025 and resolved to a Zoho branded landing page welcoming visitors to the site and promoting Zoho site building services. The registrant information records disclosed by the Registrar indicate the disputed domain name to be registered by Moderna LLC of Orlando, Alabama, however, with an Orlando, Florida zip code. 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 confusingly similar to the MODERNA marks because it contains the MODERNA mark. The Complainant also contends that the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Complainant’s trademarks and has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to perpetrate phishing scams and impersonate the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 3 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the MODERNA mark for the purposes of the Policy through its many trademark registrations including the United States registrations referenced in the Factual Background section above (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1). The MODERNA mark is entirely reproduced within the disputed domain name along with the addition of “llc ”. As is the case here, 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 to that mark (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7). Although the addition of another term, here, “llc,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8). Further, the added generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.net”, is typically disregarded in the confusing similarity test as such is a standard registration requirement (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11 and Modernatx, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Andrew Chen, WIPO Case No. D2022-3189). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MODERNA mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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 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 (see 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 submitted a response and accordingly 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. Specifically, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the MODERNA trademark. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, there is no evidence of any bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here, claimed phishing activity, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1). The Complainant has submitted evidence showing the disputed domain name was used for a fraudulent recruitment email scheme. Here, the Respondent used the disputed domain to send phishing emails impersonating the Complainant and asking recipients to engage in a job recruitment process. Such activity clearly does not confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see Lonza Ltd v. Geral Gera, SEGLINK, WIPO Case No. D2025-1342). The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. 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 (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, here, claimed phishing, constitutes bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4). Previous panels have noted the Complainant’s globally well-known mark (see Modernatx, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Andrew Chen, WIPO Case No. D2022-3189 and Modernatx, Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC / hggfdd bchgugugh, WIPO Case No. D2022-2111). Evidence submitted by Complainant shows that an email address associated with the disputed domain name [...]@modernallc.net was used by the Respondent to send phishing emails about potential remote jobs purported to be with the Complainant. It referred recipients to view and familiarize themselves with the legitimate website of the Complainant at the domain name <modernatx.com> showing clear knowledge and targeting of the Complainants mark. The Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and engage in phishing, an activity considered bad faith (see Lonza Ltd v. Geral Gera, SEGLINK, WIPO Case No. D2025-1342 and Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited v. Bukayo Ajiboye, WIPO Case No. D2023-0669). The Respondent also did not respond to the Complaint, further indicating bad faith (see Lonza Ltd v. Geral Gera, SEGLINK, WIPO Case No. D2025-1342). Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <modernallc.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Raj Sachdev/ Raj Sachdev Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2026

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