Abbviellc.shop

The timeline behind abbviellc.shop

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 AbbVie Inc. v. Chukwu Mingay Claim Number: FA2601002197887 PARTIES Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Chukwu Mingay ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <abbviellc.shop>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026. On January 6, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbviellc.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 January 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 2026 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@abbviellc.shop. Also on January 6, 2026, 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 January 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 The Complainant is a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 50,000 persons worldwide in over 70 countries, with well over $54 billion in annual revenues. The Complainant is the owner of the ABBVIE trademark, which is registered in many countries around the world, including in South Korea where Respondent resides, for a variety of medical services, research and development, as well as a variety of pharmaceutical preparations and substances. Complainant's registrations for the ABBVIE mark were applied for and issued well before the registration date for the disputed domain name on August 6, 2025. Due to extensive use, promotion, and commercial success, the ABBVIE mark has become famous and is well-known to countless consumers. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, AbbVie Inc. owns all right, title, and interest in and to the trademarks AbbVie and has used and registered it in several jurisdictions worldwide since 2013 in connection with a variety of medical services, research and development, as well as a variety of pharmaceutical preparations and substances. Respondent has registered <abbviellc.shop> domain name in August 2025 and is using it in bad faith. 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 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant's ABBVIE trademark. It includes the ABBVIE trademark in its entirety followed by "llc" (a standard corporate identifier for a Limited Liability Company, a non-distinctive element that merely describes a legal entity's structure) and the gTLD, "shop." This is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the ABBVIE trademark. See Beast Industries Co. and Beast Holdings, LLC v. Vu Thanh Hai FA 2190102 (Forum Dec. 17, 2025) (finding <mr-beast.shop> confusingly similar to the mark MRBEAST); Amy Schumer and Muffin Schumer, Inc. v. Luong Thi Phan, FA 2171341(Forum Sept. 11 2025) (finding <amyschumer.shop> identical to the mark AMY SCHUMER); FeltRight, LLC v. ALINA ALEXANDER, FA 2166864 (Forum Aug. 13, 2025) (finding the domain <feltrite.shop> identical to the FELTRITE trademark); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INC. v. Baolong Wang, FA 2071197 (Forum Dec. 20, 2023) (finding <elanco.vip> identical to the ELANCO trademark, noting that "the inconsequential ".vip" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored."); VNG Corporation v. Chen Yin Sheng, FA 1977426 (Forum Jan. 20, 2022) (finding the domain name <zalo.vip> identical to the ZALO trademark, noting that "it merely adds to the mark the inconsequential ".vip" generic top level domain ("gTLD"), which may be ignored."); Infineon Technologies AG v. ju xiao duo / shang hai xin rui shi ye you xian gong si, FA 1866209 (Forum Nov. 15, 2019) (finding the domain <Infineon.vip> identical to the INFINEON trademark where it merely added the gTLD .vip to the mark); AbbVie Inc. v. ma zhiyong / mazhiyong FA 1604404 (Forum Mar. 23, 2015) (finding the domain name <abbvie.wang> identical to the ABBVIE trademark noting that apart from the gTLD, the domain is exactly like the trademark); See also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) ("The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity."); Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"). This Panel finds that Complainant has proved trademark rights on ABBVIE and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <abbviellc.shop> domain name because AbbVie Inc. has not authorized Respondent to use the ABBVIE mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Respondent does not have any trademark rights in the <abbviellc.shop> domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <abbviellc.shop> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The disputed domain name is currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," as Google Safe Browsing has identified phishing activity on the webpage associated with the disputed domain name. See, e.g., AbbVie Inc. v. Hernan Diaz / REDACTED, FA 2173205 (Forum Sept. 23, 2025) (finding the use of the domain name in connection with a site that has been flagged as dangerous is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Baodan / Jimmy Carter, FA 2164984 (Forum Aug. 7, 2025) (finding that such use of a disputed domain name was not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); 18th and Walnut LLC v. Felix Jan , FA 2123948 (Forum Dec. 10, 2024) ("Such undenied employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy.) See, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018):…"). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith This Panel finds that Complainant has proved that Respondent registered the disputed domain name several years after Complainant's first use and registration of the trademark ABBVIE. The <abbviellc.shop> domain name includes Complainant's trademark with the addition of generic terms. It is clear from the disputed domain name that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE trademark and intended to create an association with Complainant and its products and services. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int'l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that "there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively"). See also AbbVie Inc. v. Season Advertising, S.L., FA 1727071 (Forum June 12, 2017) (holding that the ABBVIE mark was famous and that "actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); and Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum Mar. 2, 2012) ("Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant's [VICTORIA'S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As further noted, the fact that Chrome has flagged the domain name as a "dangerous site" is further evidence of bad faith. See, e.g. AbbVie Inc. v. Hernan Diaz / REDACTED, FA 2173205 (Forum Sept. 23, 2025) (finding the use of the domain name in connection with a site that has been flagged as dangerous demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use); and Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Baodan / Jimmy Carter, FA 2164984 (Forum Aug. 7, 2025) ("The Panel finds that such passing off and phishing activities constitute disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). Additionally, WHOIS information for the disputed domain is redacted. The use of a privacy shield also reflects bad faith. See AbbVie Inc. v. Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC, FA 2119550 (Forum Nov. 3, 2024) (finding the use of use of a privacy service to conceal one's identity may evince bad faith registration and use under the Policy, finding that it supports an inference of bad faith); Microsoft Corp. and Skype v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0126766269, FA 1491615 (Forum May 6, 2013) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service. In the commercial context, this raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut this presumption. That alone justifies a finding of bad faith."). The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <abbviellc.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: February 3, 2026 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.