Lonza Ltd successfully challenged five domains, including lonzafactory.com, used to impersonate the company and sell unauthorized pharmaceuticals. The panel ordered the transfer of all domains after the respondent defaulted and failed to prove any legitimate interest.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-3238 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Lonza Ltd |
| Respondent | chen lele, Fuzhou Ofit Trading Co., Ltd. |
| Disputed Domain | lonzafactory.comlonzafactorysale.shoplonzafactorys.shoplonzafactory.storelonzafactoryusa.shop |
| Threat Tactic | Fake Stores |
| Decision Date | 2026-09-21 |
| Panelist | Charles Gielen |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-3238 |
Facing Unauthorized Domain Registrations or Brand Abuse?
Our domain dispute attorneys represent trademark owners and businesses worldwide before WIPO, Forum (NAF), and CAC. Explore our Domain Name Disputes and Enforcement & Takedowns services, or request a free case evaluation.
Request Case EvaluationRisks of Pharmaceutical Impersonation and Passive Holding Tactics
The registration of domains such as lonzafactory.com and its variants presents a multi-layered threat to brand owners in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. By utilizing the ‘LONZA’ trademark within factory-themed domain names, the Respondent deliberately cultivated a false impression of corporate affiliation to facilitate the sale of unauthorized pharmaceutical products. This tactic directly threatens consumer safety and erodes the reputation of the legitimate brand owner, as victims may associate the sub-standard or illicit products purchased through these fraudulent websites with the genuine company’s manufacturing operations. The use of such domains for illegal activity constitutes a clear form of bad faith, intended to capitalize on the goodwill of an established global trademark.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s strategy highlights the dual-risk profile of active fraudulent sites combined with passive holding. While four of the disputed domains were used to host active, infringing websites, the inclusion of lonzafactory.store—which remained in passive holding—demonstrates a comprehensive effort to secure brand real estate for future exploitation or to prevent the Complainant from controlling its online footprint. The reliance on privacy services, such as PrivacyGuardian.org, further complicates enforcement by masking the true identity of the registrant. This combination of active fraud and passive domain hoarding necessitates a robust, proactive domain enforcement strategy, as even inactive sites can be leveraged to create confusion regarding source, sponsorship, or endorsement, thereby increasing the scope of trademark infringement risk.
Panel Reasoning: Confusing Similarity, Lack of Legitimate Interests, and Bad Faith Findings
The panel evaluated the disputed domain names, which incorporated the ‘LONZA’ trademark in its entirety, finding them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s globally registered mark. The panel established that the addition of generic terms such as ‘factory’ or ‘sale’ did not mitigate the risk of consumer confusion. Because the Respondent failed to file a response, the panel accepted the Complainant’s assertion that the unauthorized reproduction of its trademark within these domain names was intended to create a misleading impression of affiliation or endorsement by Lonza Ltd.
Regarding the lack of rights or legitimate interests, the panel noted that the Respondent possessed no authorization, license, or permission to use the ‘LONZA’ mark. The panel determined that the Respondent’s activities—specifically the operation of websites selling unauthorized pharmaceutical products—could not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the panel concluded that such illegal activity, including the creation of fraudulent impersonation sites, inherently precludes the existence of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.
The finding of bad faith was underscored by the Respondent’s dual-track approach to trademark infringement. While four of the five domain names were actively used to facilitate the sale of unauthorized pharmaceuticals, the panel addressed the fifth domain, ‘lonzafactory.store’, as a case of passive holding. Consistent with established UDRP jurisprudence, the panel reasoned that holding a domain name that mimics a protected mark without active use is not a legitimate endeavor and provides further evidence of bad faith. By masking their identity behind privacy services and defaulting on the complaint, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to counter the Complainant’s robust showing of registration and use in bad faith.
Strategic Breakdown: Leveraging Brand Equity and Evidence of Malicious Intent
The Complainant’s strategy centered on establishing a clear nexus between its globally recognized ‘LONZA’ trademark and the Respondent’s multi-faceted cybersquatting tactics. By consolidating five distinct domain names into a single UDRP proceeding, the Complainant effectively demonstrated a pattern of abuse. The persuasive power of this case relied on linking the active, illicit use of the ‘lonzafactory’ domains—which redirected unsuspecting users to sources of unauthorized pharmaceuticals—to the broader, malicious intent of impersonating a market leader. This comprehensive evidence portfolio, underpinned by long-standing registrations like U.S. Reg. No. 956300, provided the Panel with a straightforward basis to dismiss any potential for legitimate commercial or noncommercial interest.
A secondary, critical component of the Complainant’s strategy was addressing the ‘lonzafactory.store’ domain, which remained in passive holding. By framing this domain as part of a wider ecosystem of trademark infringement, the Complainant successfully argued that passive holding, when coupled with the fraudulent use of associated domains, cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods. The Respondent’s failure to file a response left these allegations of bad faith registration and use entirely unrebutted, effectively isolating the Respondent’s conduct as a textbook example of corporate impersonation. This approach allowed the Panel to issue a transfer order, reinforcing that respondents cannot evade accountability through a mix of active fraudulent sites and strategic domain warehousing.
Practical Recommendations
- Bundle multiple infringing domain names into a single UDRP complaint where registrations share identical patterns, registrant contact information, or registrar privacy services to maximize procedural efficiency.
- Address both active fraudulent sites and passively held domains in the same filing by arguing that passive holding of a trademark-mimicking domain provides no evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services.
- Prioritize the collection of screenshots and site archives for active ‘fake shop’ domains at the time of discovery, as these remain critical for proving bad faith use even when the respondent defaults.
- Use UDRP registrar verification procedures as a primary tool to attempt to strip away privacy protection and identify the underlying registrant, which is vital for building a record of repeated infringing behavior.
- Standardize the submission of global trademark registration certificates within the complaint to establish the strength of the brand mark, ensuring panels have clear evidence to support findings of source confusion.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why were the disputed domains like ‘lonzafactory.com’ considered confusingly similar to the Lonza trademark?
The panel found that the disputed domains incorporate the ‘LONZA’ trademark in its entirety, coupled with descriptive terms like ‘factory’ and ‘sale’ that create a high likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source or affiliation of the websites.
How did the panel address the fact that one domain, ‘lonzafactory.store’, was not being actively used?
The panel applied the principle of ‘passive holding,’ determining that a domain name mirroring a protected trademark—even without an active website—cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, thus supporting a finding of bad faith registration.
What evidence proved the Respondent’s bad faith regarding the pharmaceutical websites?
Bad faith was established by the Respondent’s use of domains to impersonate Lonza while selling unauthorized pharmaceutical products, which the panel ruled can never confer legitimate rights or interests and serves as clear evidence of an intent to trade on the Complainant’s brand goodwill.
Did the Respondent attempt to defend the registration of these domains?
No, the Respondent failed to file a response to the complaint, leading the panel to issue a default notice and proceed with a decision based on the Complainant’s evidence, which demonstrated unauthorized use of the Lonza mark.
Found a fake shop using your brand?
Protect your customers and brand reputation from unauthorized pharmaceutical sales and factory-themed impersonation. We can help you assess your UDRP eligibility for domain recovery.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
