Arsenalbiosciences.com

The timeline behind arsenalbiosciences.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Arsenal Biosciences, Inc. v. [Name redacted by the Panel to protect a third party] Claim Number: FA2506002163485 PARTIES Complainant is Arsenal Biosciences, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Tiffany D. Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is [REDACTED] ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <arsenalbiosciences.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 30, 2025; Forum received payment on June 30, 2025. On June 30, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <arsenalbiosciences.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 July 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 23, 2025 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@arsenalbiosciences.com. Also on July 3, 2025, 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 July 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: NAME OF RESPONDENT As found below, Respondent availed of a privacy service to conceal its identity. The Registrar disclosed the full details of the registration at the request of Forum as is required by the Policy. The disclosed information shows that Respondent falsely and fraudulently provided the name of Complainant's CEO as the registrant of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the CEO's name to remain as Respondent in this proceeding, so to protect the reputation of the CEO, who has no association with the disputed domain name registration, Respondent or its activities, this Panel directs that his name should be redacted in the title of this Decision. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the ARSENALBIO trademark, based on its ownership of the trademark registration described below In addition, Complainant submits that its common law rights in the ARSENALBIO mark further extend to research and development, scientific studies, and additional services related to cell therapy, programmable cell technology, and the treatment of cancer, among other things. Complainant submits that it has used the ARSENALBIO mark continuously since its adoption in February 2018. Complainant's domain name <arsenalbio.com> was registered in 2017, and as evidenced by the results from the Wayback Machine which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has actively and publicly maintained its website at <arsenalbio.com> to promote its business since at least as early as October 2019. Consequently, it is argued that Complainant's the ARSENALBIO mark has become widely recognized; and Complainant's business and reputation has grown to the extent that it has been in receipt of significant investment, raising $85 million in 2019 and $325 million. Firstly, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ARSENAL BIO mark in which it has rights, as it consists of Complainant's trademark in combination with the descriptive term "sciences" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension .com. It is submitted that the addition of the element "sciences" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark, especially as it reflects Complainant's full corporate name which incorporates a description of Complainant's business in the field of scientific research and development. Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS records show that Respondent has fraudulently adopted the name of Complainant's CEO, as the purported registrant, and the associated address is a vacant lot; · Respondent failed to discharge its duty to select, register, and use a domain name that does not infringe the rights of a third party, in violation of Policy ¶ 2(b); · no business relationship exists between Complainant and Respondent; · Respondent does not have, and never has had, permission to use Complainant's mark; · Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; · Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant refers to a copy of an email message sent by Respondent from an account created using the disputed domain name as an email address, which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The email message falsely purports to have been sent by Complainant's CEO to a member of Complainant's staff. It states "Good morning [name of employee redacted by the Panel], Can you please let me know who can assist with making an international wire payment in Euros? Thanks [Name of CEO omitted by the Panel]." Complainant submits that Respondent was therefore purporting to impersonate its CEO, deceive its employees and solicit fraudulent payments, in a phishing scam. It is submitted that it follows that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent registered the disputed domain was registered on September 16, 2024 merely days after Complainant announced $325 million in funding, as shown in a copy of a press release dated September 4, 2024) which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant adds that the disputed domain name was registered many years after Complainant established its own website at <arsenalbio.com> domain name and after Complainant began the registration process for the ARSENALBIO trademark. It is further submitted that the registration of the disputed domain name in these circumstances demonstrates intent to deceive and disrupt Complainant's business. Complainant adds that the registration of the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; Respondent's intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark; and Respondent's impersonation of Complainant's CEO and use of the disputed domain name in a phishing scam to solicit payment information, constitute clear evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Arsenal Biosciences, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on clinical-stage programmable cell therapy and is the owner of · United States registered trademark ARSENALBIO, registration number 7,580,387, registered on the Principal Register on November 26, 2024, for goods in International Class 5. Complainant has an established Internet presence and it owns and operates the domain name <arsenalbio.com>, registered in 2017, which it has actively used as the address of its website since at least October 2019 to promote its business and display its trademark. The disputed domain name <arsenalbiosciences.com> was registered on September 16, 2024. It does not resolve to an active website but has been configured for email use and has been used to send a phishing email message impersonating Complainant's CEO, to one of Complainant's employees requesting information on how to make an international wire transfer of funds. There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WHOIS for the disputed domain name, and the Registrar's response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of this proceeding. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the ARSENALBIO trademark established by its ownership of the abovementioned trademark registration and at common law by its extensive use of the mark in its scientific research and development. The disputed domain name <arsenalbiosciences.com> is composed of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the generic word "science" and the generic Top-Level Domain (" gTLD") extension <.com>. It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to establish, as in the present case, that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In the circumstances of this Complaint the generic word "science" within the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the ARSENALBIO mark. Furthermore, the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purpose of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the ARSENALBIO mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular the record shows that Respondent falsely registered the disputed domain name in the name of Complainant's CEO, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, but instead it has been used to create an email account which has been used to falsely impersonate Complainant's CEO in an attempt to perpetrate a phishing scheme. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2024, long after Complainant had issued a press release announcing that it had raised significant funding. At that time the Complainant had maintained a website since October 2019 at <arsenalbio.com>. While Complainant's United States registered trademark ARSENALBIO was not registered until November 26, 2024, the application had been filed at the USPTO on March 26, 2021. ARSENALBIO is a distinctive mark, and the disputed domain name consists of the mark in its entirety with the generic word "science" inferring a connection with scientific research and development which is Complainant's field of activity. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's corporate name: Arsenal Biosciences Inc. It is implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant, its corporate name, its website at <arsenalbio.com>, and its ARSENALBIO mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. Furthermore, while Respondent availed of a privacy service to conceal its identity on the published WhoIs for the disputed domain name, the Registrar has disclosed for the purposes of this Complaint that Respondent falsely stated in registering the disputed domain name that it was Complainant's CEO, and provided a false physical address for the registrant. On the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind intending to take predatory advantage of the goodwill and reputation established by Complainant and the ARSENALBIO mark. The uncontested evidence on record shows that Respondent has provided false registration information when registering the disputed domain name; that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website; that Respondent has created an email account using the disputed domain name which it has used to send a message falsely purporting to have been sent by Complainant's CEO to one of Complainant's employees in an attempt to perpetrate a phishing scheme. Such fraudulent use of the disputed domain name by Respondent constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arsenalbiosciences.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. ______________________________________ James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: July 27, 2025 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.