Us-agilent.com

The timeline behind us-agilent.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 Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. James Andrew / N/A Claim Number: FA2606002225993 PARTIES Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Julie A Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is James Andrew / N/A ("Respondent"), Maryland, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <us-agilent.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 8, 2026; Forum received payment on June 8, 2026. On June 10, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <us-agilent.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 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@us-agilent.com. Also on June 11, 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 July 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it provides a wide variety of goods and services in, inter alia, the life sciences, diagnostics, and the laboratory and scientific research industries. Complainant is a Fortune 500 company and world leader in the life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets. Complainant was formed in 1999 after its predecessor company, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., announced a strategic realignment to create Complainant as an independent measurement company composed of test and measurement components, life sciences and chemical analysis, electronics, and semiconductor and communications products. That "spin-off" of Hewlett-Packard in 1999 received significant media attention because, at the time, the $2.1 billion raised from this initial public offering ("IPO") was the largest IPO in Silicon Valley history. Complainant currently provides laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise and employs over 18,000 people worldwide serving customers in 110 countries, and serving approximately 265,000 laboratories, including major universities, hospitals, and research institutions globally. Complainant, through its domain name and corresponding website <agilent.com>, operates a robust online marketplace where its customers can choose from hundreds of different products which can be shipped to countries all over the world. Complainant's revenues in 2025 exceeded $6.95 billion. Complainant asserts rights in the AGILENT mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2002. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its AGILENT mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the geographic term "US", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its allegations. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the AGILENT mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant, as part of a fraudulent scheme to confuse and defraud Complainant's customers and/or business associates. Specifically, Respondent impersonated one of Complainant's employees and sent an email to one of Complainant's business partners in Argentina requesting "travel support from your local travel agency capable of managing flight bookings for our upcoming business trips to Argentina and other parts of South America for our staff." Respondent, posing as a "Marketing Executive" for Complainant, falsely explained that "[o]ur current travel agency partner, with whom we have a corporate agreement, is presently undergoing staff downsizing and is unable to provide services at this time. As such, we are seeking a temporary alternative and would appreciate it if you could introduce a suitable travel agency to us." Respondent's false statements were a clear attempt to defraud Complainant's business partner, obtain confidential business contacts or other confidential business information, and potentially divert payments to Respondent. Respondent's fraudulent correspondence not only impersonated the email address of Complainant's employee, but it also impersonated that employee's entire email signature block—including the employee's name, title, and street address. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its allegations. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AGILENT mark. Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names because it has been found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith in a prior UDRP case. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its allegations. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark AGILENT and uses it in connection with a wide variety of goods and services in, inter alia, the life sciences, diagnostics, and the laboratory and scientific research industries. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2002. The disputed domain name was registered in 2026. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and the address of one of Complainant's offices. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. 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 3.1 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 incorporates Complainant's AGILENT mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the geographic term "US", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the marks it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) (finding that as "the 'usa' portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds."); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Forum Sept. 23, 2003) ("The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis."); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) ("The mere addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its AGILENT mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA 1571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "James Andrew / N/A". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate employees of Complainant in fraudulent emails in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A respondent's use of an email address incorporating a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant under false pretenses may support a finding of failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither 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)); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Phishing may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) ("Respondent's attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent's attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent's registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and the address of one of Complainant's offices. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in numerous prior UDRP cases. This is sufficient to find bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). 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 <us-agilent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: July 2, 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.