Abbvie-mxg.com, Abbvie-mc.com, Abbvie-mz.com

The timeline behind abbvie-mxg.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. hao li Claim Number: FA2601002198249 PARTIES Complainant is AbbVie Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is hao li ("Respondent"), Hong Kong. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <abbvie-mxg.com>, <abbvie-mc.com> and <abbvie-mz.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 6, 2026; Forum received payment on January 6, 2026. On January 7, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abbvie-mxg.com>, <abbvie-mc.com> and <abbvie-mz.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 January 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 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@abbvie-mxg.com, postmaster@abbvie-mc.com, postmaster@abbvie-mz.com. Also on January 7, 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 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant is a global research-based biopharmaceutical company. Complainant has secured rights in the ABBVIE mark globally, inter alia, through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013). The ABBVIE mark enjoys widespread fame and recognition. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ABBVIE mark in that they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely appending a hyphen, the letters "mxg," "mc," and "mz," and the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ABBVIE mark. Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor engaging in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain names are currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," as Google Safe Browsing has identified phishing activity on the webpages associated with the disputed domain names. Respondent has registered domain names that are confusingly similar to the famous ABBVIE trademark and is using them to impersonate Complainant and create a false association with Complainant in an attempt to phish for personal information. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent was not only aware of the ABBVIE mark at the time of registration, but intentionally adopted the disputed domain names incorporating the ABBVIE mark to suggest an association with Complainant and its services. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known ABBVIE mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The fact that Chrome flagged each of the domain names as a "dangerous site" is further evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names is concealed by a privacy shield. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain names were registered on December 5, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the ABBVIE mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013). 3. The disputed domain names are currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," displaying the warning: "Attackers on the site you tried visiting might trick you into installing software or revealing things like your passwords, phone, or credit card numbers." 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 asserts rights in the ABBVIE mark based on its registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has furnished a copy of its USPTO registration for the ABBVIE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,344,288, registered on May 28, 2013). Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, <abbvie-mxg.com>, <abbvie-mc.com> and <abbvie-mz.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely appending a hyphen, the letters "mxg," "mc," and "mz," and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as the addition of a hyphen, non-distinctive letters, and a gTLD to a trademark does not negate confusing similarity 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's ABBVIE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "hao li." The Panel finds that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain names are currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," because Google Safe Browsing has identified phishing activity on the webpages associated with the disputed domain names. The Panel notes from the submitted screenshots that the disputed domain names are currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," displaying the warning: "Attackers on the site you tried visiting might trick you into installing software or revealing things like your passwords, phone, or credit card numbers." In light of Chrome blocking access to the webpages resolved by the disputed domain names due to the suspicion that they are dangerous sites used for installing software or revealing things like passwords, phone, or credit card numbers, the Panel finds that it is highly likely that the disputed domain names are used for malicious purposes, such as distributing malware and/or facilitating a fraudulent phishing scheme to collect sensitive information from Internet users. The Panel finds that such a use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. Collectively, these factors substantiate the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a Response or attempt by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that the fact that Chrome has flagged each of the domain names as a "dangerous site" is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel observes that where a domain name is used for malicious purposes, such as malware distribution, panels have consistently found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel also observes that the use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith where it disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), or seeks to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"). As previously noted, it is highly likely that the disputed domain names are used for malicious purposes, such as distributing malware and/or facilitating a fraudulent phishing scheme to collect sensitive information such as passwords, phone, or credit card numbers of Internet users. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith where it disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or seeks to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its well-known ABBVIE mark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel notes that Complainant is a specialty-focused research-based biopharmaceutical company that employs approximately 50,000 individuals worldwide in over 70 countries, and that the company generates well over $54 billion in annual revenues. Due to extensive use, promotion, and commercial success, the ABBVIE mark has become famous and is well-known to countless consumers. Prior UDRP panels have found that the ABBVIE mark is well-known and famous. The Panel infers from the fame of the ABBVIE mark that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ABBVIE mark at the time of registering the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names 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 <abbvie-mxg.com>, <abbvie-mc.com> and <abbvie-mz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: January 28, 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.