Teleflexgroup.com

The timeline behind teleflexgroup.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.

DECISION Teleflex Incorporated v. Anderson, Bryan Claim Number: FA2302002030558 PARTIES Complainant is Teleflex Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Pennsylvania. Respondent is Anderson, Bryan (“Respondent”), US. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <teleflexgroup.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2023. Forum received payment on February 3, 2023. On February 7, 2023, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On February 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@teleflexgroup.com. Also on February 13, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 13, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a global provider of medical technology products, including specialty devices for a range of procedures in critical care and surgery that are designed to improve the health and quality of people’s lives. Complainant has rights in the TELEFLEX mark through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <teleflexgroup.com> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and its <teleflex.com> domain name. Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the TELEFLEX mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves to a webpage with various links related to the goods and services offered by Complainant and its competitors. Further, Respondent engages in a phishing scam by sending fraudulent emails using the domain name. Respondent registered and uses the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TELEFLEX mark, in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent engages in a phishing scam. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the TELEFLEX mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,780,186 registered April 27, 2010). The Panel finds Respondent’s <teleflexgroup.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the TELEFLEX mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “group”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <teleflexgroup.com> domain name was registered on January 30, 2023, many years after Complainant registered its TELEFLEX mark. It resolves to a webpage displaying click-through links to third-party websites providing similar services to Complainant. On January 30, 2023, an employee of Complainant received an email from <liam.kelly@teleflexgroup.com>, purporting to be from the Chairman, President and CEO of Complainant, seeking to arrange for the employee to make a payment on behalf of Complainant (Exhibit F). These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s TELEFLEX mark when Respondent registered the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent’s email (Exhibit F) was clearly a phishing attempt which alone demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teleflexgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 15, 2023. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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