About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

IQVIA Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249079231, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249129115, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249079230 / Daniel Hanna

Case No. D2021-1285

1. The Parties

The Complainant is IQVIA Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, United States.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249079231, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249129115, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249079230, Canada / Daniel Hanna, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <iqviaapplications.com>, <iqviaenrolment.com> and <iqviajobs.com> are registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 27, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 28, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 28, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 26, 2021.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 2, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States, that provides a variety of goods and services in the field of pharmaceutical, medical, healthcare and life sciences, including computer software and consulting and research services.

The Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 5583438 for the word trademark IQVIA (filed on May 4, 2017, and registered on October 16, 2018).

The Complainant, in connection with its business, operates a website using the domain name <iqvia.com>, which was registered on July 30, 2015.

The disputed domain names <iqviaapplications.com> and <iqviajobs.com> were registered on January 9, 2021. The disputed domain name <iqviaenrolment.com> was registered on January 15, 2021. It appears that none of the disputed domain names have at any stage since registration resolved to a website. The Complainant has provided copies of email correspondence from someone said to be Daniel Hanna, sent from email addresses that use the disputed domain names, to members of the public who have applied for online job listings allegedly for jobs with the Complainant, in attempts to obtain personal information from them.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because:

(i) each of them is composed of the string “iqvia”, which is identical to the Complainant’s IQVIA trademark, with the addition of a descriptive term (either “jobs”, “enrolment” or “applications”) used for phishing emails related to fraudulent job listings for positions allegedly with the Complainant; and

(ii) the added terms of “jobs”, “enrolment” and “applications” not only do not distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s IQVIA word trademark, but rather reinforce the connection to the Complainant by conveying the false impression that the disputed domain names originate from the human resources or careers departments of the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because:

(i) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s IQVIA trademark;

(ii) after discovering the disputed domain names on or about January 11, 2021, the Complainant found there were no active websites resolving from them;

(iii) many individuals who applied for online job listings allegedly for jobs with the Complainant reported to the Complainant that email addresses using the disputed domain names and the name Daniel Hanna were used for the purpose of sending phishing emails and/or receiving emails purportedly associated with the Complainant in an attempt to defraud such individuals in order to get access to sensitive and confidential personal information;

(iv) in an effort to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain names, the Complainant sent a demand letter on January 26, 2021, to the Respondent’s email addresses provided in the WhoIs contact information, but did not receive a response; and

(v) there is no indication that the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, or has ever made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s IQVIA trademark.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith because:

(i) they are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQVIA trademark, and were registered for the purpose of sending phishing emails and/or receiving emails purportedly associated with the Complainant in order to promote fraudulent job listings for positions allegedly with the Complainant;

(ii) the registration and use of the disputed domain names was an intentional attempt to attract individuals to respond to online job listings allegedly for jobs with the Complainant, in an attempt to defraud such individuals in order to get access to their sensitive and confidential personal information;

(iii) the basis for the registration of the disputed domain names was to create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of the disputed domain names with that of the Complainant and its IQVIA trademark, with the intention to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill in its IQVIA trademark; and

(iv) further use of the disputed domain names will likely continue to improperly perpetuate the Respondent’s phishing email scheme and divert individuals from the Complainant’s official website, and continue to cause a likelihood of confusion for individuals trying to obtain information from or about the Complainant regarding employment.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Consolidation of Action against the Respondent

The registrant’s contact information disclosed by the Registrar in respect of the disputed domain name <iqviaenrolment.com> differed slightly from that disclosed by the Registrar in respect of the other two disputed domain names. For all three disputed domain names, the registrant name was disclosed as Daniel Hanna; however, the registrant address for the disputed domain name <iqviaenrolment.com> was different. The Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate for the Complaint to proceed in relation to all three of the disputed domain names for the following reasons. First, the registrant name is the same for all three disputed domain names. Secondly, all three disputed domain names have been used in a similar manner – namely, for email addresses to send phishing emails and/or to receive emails as a result of phishing in respect of purported employment opportunities with the Complainant. Thirdly, no objection to the Complaint proceeding in relation to all three disputed domain names was received from the registrant of the disputed domain names – indeed, there was no response at all from the registrant of them. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied on the evidence currently before it that the registrant of all three disputed domain names is one and the same person.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Once the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), each of the three disputed domain names consist of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark IQVIA followed by a descriptive word – being either “applications”, “enrolment” or “jobs”. The Complainant’s word trademark IQVIA is clearly recognizable within each of the disputed domain names. The addition of the descriptive word does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s word trademark. As provided in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its IQVIA trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain names, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain names were used in email addresses to send and/or receive emails relating to false job opportunities with the Complainant. Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names to the Complainant’s trademark and the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, such a use is neither a bona fide use nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent has not rebutted this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain names were registered several years after the Complainant first registered its IQVIA word trademark. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names ignorant of the existence of the Complainant’s IQVIA trademark, given that the disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s trademark with the mere addition of the descriptive word “applications”, “enrolment” or “jobs”. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names in email addresses used to send emails and/or to receive emails in an attempt at phishing by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the user of the email address and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, <iqviaapplications.com>, <iqviaenrolment.com>, and <iqviajobs.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/