Besins Healthcare Luxembourg Sarl challenged the registration of buyandrogel.com, which was held by Daisha Thomas. The WIPO panel ordered the transfer of the domain after finding it was registered and used in bad faith despite the site being listed as under construction.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2026-3027 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Besins Healthcare Luxembourg Sarl |
| Respondent | Daisha Thomas |
| Disputed Domain | buyandrogel.com |
| Threat Tactic | Passive Holding |
| Decision Date | 2026-09-02 |
| Panelist | Eric Macramalla |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2026-3027 |
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 EvaluationBusiness Threats Associated with Passive Holding and Domain Misappropriation
The registration of buyandrogel.com illustrates a common threat where bad actors secure brand-inclusive domains to facilitate potential consumer deception. Although the site was configured as an ‘under construction’ page, this tactic of passive holding creates a strategic risk for brand owners by reserving space for future malicious operations, such as unauthorized commercial traffic diversion, phishing, or the sale of counterfeit products. The lack of active content at the time of discovery does not mitigate the underlying threat, as the domain remains a vehicle for infringing upon the established equity of the ANDROGEL trademark, which has been in use since 1983.
Furthermore, the use of anonymized contact information complicates enforcement, necessitating reliance on registrar verification procedures to identify the true registrant. This administrative hurdle consumes time and resources, providing bad actors with an initial window to exploit brand association. Because the Respondent failed to respond to the UDRP proceedings, the case underscores the importance of proactive domain monitoring; by identifying and challenging such registrations early, brand owners can prevent the development of more sophisticated fraud schemes, such as those masquerading as legitimate storefronts, thereby protecting both their reputation and customer trust.
Panel Reasoning: Confusing Similarity, Lack of Rights, and Bad Faith
To succeed under the UDRP, the Complainant successfully satisfied the three-pronged criteria of paragraph 4(a). The Panel determined that the disputed domain, ‘buyandrogel.com’, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s established ANDROGEL trademark. By incorporating the entire trademark into the domain string, the Respondent created a clear risk of consumer confusion. The Panel noted that the Complainant has maintained longstanding global rights in the ANDROGEL mark since 1983, providing a robust foundation for asserting ownership against this infringing registration.
Regarding the second element, the Panel found the Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain. The evidence confirmed that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the ANDROGEL mark, nor was the Respondent commonly known by that name. Furthermore, the absence of any bona fide offering of goods or services, coupled with the Respondent’s failure to present a rebuttal to the Complainant’s contentions, further cemented the conclusion that no legitimate interest existed.
Finally, the Panel addressed the finding of bad faith registration and use. Despite the website being in an ‘under construction’ state, the Panel held that this passive holding of the domain, combined with the Respondent’s constructive or actual knowledge of the well-known ANDROGEL trademark, supported an inference of bad faith. The Respondent’s complete silence throughout the proceedings further undermined any defense of good faith. Consequently, the Panel determined that the totality of these circumstances satisfied the requirements for a transfer order, reinforcing that even non-active sites can be subject to recovery when they clearly target protected intellectual property.
Strategic Enforcement Against Passive Holding
The success of Besins Healthcare’s enforcement strategy relied on leveraging its longstanding trademark portfolio against a newly registered domain that exhibited clear signs of predatory intent. By highlighting the incorporation of the entire ‘ANDROGEL’ trademark within the disputed domain ‘buyandrogel.com’, the Complainant established an immediate case for confusing similarity. The strategic decision to initiate the UDRP process shortly after the July 2026 registration prevented the respondent from developing active content, thereby allowing the Complainant to frame the ‘under construction’ placeholder as evidence of bad-faith passive holding rather than legitimate commercial use.
Persuasiveness was further bolstered by the Respondent’s failure to participate in the proceedings, which allowed the Panel to draw adverse inferences regarding the lack of legitimate rights or interests. The Complainant’s proactive approach, including the rapid utilization of registrar verification to identify contact information, provided the necessary factual foundation to demonstrate that the respondent had no connection to the brand. By focusing on the inherent value of the trademark since 1983 and the absence of any bona fide offering, the Complainant effectively neutralized potential defenses and secured a swift transfer without requiring evidence of actual consumer confusion or active site deployment.
Practical Recommendations
- Monitor newly registered domains containing high-value trademarks to enable proactive enforcement before active malicious content is deployed.
- Utilize registrar verification requests immediately upon discovery of a disputed domain to identify the true registrant, even when privacy services are active.
- Document ‘under construction’ or placeholder pages as evidence of passive holding to satisfy the ‘bad faith’ criteria under UDRP policy.
- Highlight existing, long-standing trademark registrations in the initial complaint to establish clear priority and the unlikelihood of legitimate third-party interest.
- Leverage the WIPO Overview 3.1 as a standard framework to structure legal arguments, specifically focusing on the lack of rights or legitimate interests.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why was the domain buyandrogel.com considered confusingly similar to the ANDROGEL trademark?
The WIPO panel found that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Besins Healthcare’s established ANDROGEL trademark, which has been in use since 1983. Because the mark is clearly recognizable within the domain, it satisfies the threshold for confusing similarity under the UDRP.
How did the panel conclude there was bad faith despite the domain showing only an ‘under construction’ page?
Under the UDRP, passive holding of a domain—where no active website is maintained—can still constitute bad faith. The panel determined that the respondent’s lack of legitimate rights, combined with their knowledge of the well-known ANDROGEL brand, supported an inference of bad faith even without active commercial content on the site.
What evidence established the respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests?
The panel noted that the respondent was not authorized by Besins Healthcare to use the ANDROGEL trademark, was not commonly known by the domain name, and provided no evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial use.
What was the tactical significance of the respondent failing to respond to the complaint?
The respondent’s failure to file a response allowed the panel to proceed based on the evidence presented by the complainant, accelerating the adjudication process and leading to a swift transfer order, which is a common outcome in cases of clear brand infringement.
Is someone blocking your brand domain?
Even without active content, passive holding of a domain incorporating your trademark can be leveraged as evidence of bad faith under UDRP guidelines. Discover how to effectively assert your rights against squatters.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
