Anheartherapeutics.com

The timeline behind anheartherapeutics.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 Nuvation Bio Inc. v. Pat Welder Case No. D2026-2809 1. The Parties Complainant is Nuvation Bio Inc., United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Fish & Richardson PC, United States. Respondent is Pat Welder, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <anheartherapeutics.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2026. On June 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 30, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 1, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 1, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 28, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 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 Complainant is a global, publicly traded oncology company that develops and commercializes novel therapies for difficult-to-treat cancers. On or about April 9, 2024, Complainant acquired AnHeart Therapeutics, a global clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing precision oncology therapies (including taletrectinib and safusidenib), in an all-stock transaction. Through that acquisition, Complainant acquired AnHeart Therapeutics’ business, assets, and goodwill, including the worldwide portfolio of ANHEART trademarks (the “ANHEART Mark”) and the rights in the ANHEART name and brand. The ANHEART Mark has been used in commerce in connection with pharmaceutical research, development, and related services since well before the events at issue. Complainant owns numerous registrations for the ANHEART Mark around the world, including two United States registrations: United States Registration No. 7,191,277 for ANHEART registered on October 19, 2023, in international Class 42; and United States Registration No. 7,257,172 for ANHEART registered on January 2, 2024, in international class 42. Complainant also owns and controls numerous additional ANHEART registrations and applications worldwide, including, among others, International Registration No. 1,647,512 (designating numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Indonesia, and others), registered on January 27, 2022. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 21, 2026, resolves to a website purporting to be a company “An Heart Therapeutics, LLC”. The Disputed Domain Name has also been enrolled in a mail exchange (MX) allowing for the sending and receiving of email. The website invites emails from prospective job applicants. The website also lists Complainant’s former New York office address, which appeared on Complainant’s prior website at “www.anhearttherapeutics.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it is the owner of the ANHEART Mark. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ANHEART Mark. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is a deliberate misspelling of the prior legitimate domain name associated with Complainant’s AnHeart business: it is identical to that domain name but for the omission a single letter “t”. The Disputed Domain Name is, but for the omission of a single letter “t”, identical to the legitimate <anhearttherapeutics.com> domain name formerly used by the AnHeart business, and it wholly incorporates the ANHEART Mark followed the term “therapeutics”, which describes Complainant’s field and is part of the AnHeart trade name. Complainant further contends that such typosquatting is by its nature confusingly similar to the ANHEART Mark. page 3 Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, has never been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the ANHEART Mark, and has no connection to the AnHeart business that Complainant acquired. Complainant submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further submits that, by operating a website that impersonates Complainant, the actions of Respondent can neither be considered bona fide nor legitimate. Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to the criteria of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Complainant further alleges that both United States trademark registrations issued, and the ANHEART Mark portfolio was developed, years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. By the time of the acquisition in 2024, the AnHeart business had developed substantial goodwill in the ANHEART name and operated a public-facing website at the domain name <anhearttherapeutics.com> which described AnHeart’s precision oncology pipeline and prominently identified the company’s office in New York, United States. Complainant further alleges that on March 21, 2026, – nearly two years after Complainant’s acquisition of AnHeart and years after the ANHEART Mark registrations issued – the Disputed Domain Name was registered through a privacy service. Complainant further alleges that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is plainly designed to impersonate Complainant and the AnHeart business. Among other things, it : (i) uses the ANHEART name together with a heart-shaped logo evoking Complainant’s branding; (ii) refers to itself as “An Heart Therapeutics, LLC” and claims to develop “small molecule drugs” and therapies for “metabolic diseases” and “cancer”, including “castration-resistant prostate cancer and other aggressive solid tumors”; and (iii) on its “Contact” page lists Complainant’s New York address from before the acquisition as its own. Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s impersonation extends to apparent recruitment activity. The “Careers” page of the website advertises an open “Data Entry Clerk” position and directs interested persons to contact “Human Relations” at two [...]@anheartherapeutics.com email addresses. The combination of a fabricated corporate identity impersonating Complainant, the use of AnHeart’s real (prior) address, and a solicitation of job applicants strongly indicate that the Disputed Domain Name is being used, or is being prepared for use, to perpetrate employment scams and/or phishing directed at unsuspecting job seekers who believe they are dealing with Complainant. Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. 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.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. page 4 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights; and ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of a trademark, here the ANHEART Mark, prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the ANHEART Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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 mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ANHEART Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the word “therapeutics”, 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 ANHEART Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. In addition, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9 indicates that using the Disputed Domain Name for typosquatting is considered to be confusingly similar to the ANHEART Mark. 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 the Disputed Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the mark. page 5 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as passing off , and phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on 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 the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. page 6 Panels have held that the use of the Disptued Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as passing off , and phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <anheartherapeutics.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2026

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