Samsung Bioepis CO., LTD. v kalo anna

WIPO Case No. D2025-1367

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD. v. kalo anna

Case No. D2025-1367

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD., Republic of Korea, represented by KAI International IP

Law Firm, Republic of Korea.

The Respondent is kalo anna, Hungary.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <xbryk.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 4, 2025. On
April 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On April 7, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its
verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from
the named Respondent (Anonymous / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information
in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 9, 2025, 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 9, 2025.

On April 9, 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Center denying any submission, requesting deletion of the personal data, and demanding no further communication. On the same day, the Center responded to the Respondent’s email, informing that it was verifying the current status and upcoming formal steps in the

proceedings.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was May 1, 2025. The Respondent did not file a formal Response.

On April 11, 2025, the Respondent sent two emails indicating, i.a., the willingness to transfer the Domain Name. On the same day, the Center informed the Parties of the possibility of implementing a settlement agreement. On April 14, 2025, the Complainant responded, stating that it did not wish to pursue a settlement

and requested that the proceedings continue.

Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, on May 6, 2025, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with the panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 2025. 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 biopharmaceutical company founded in 2012. Among its products is a biosimilar of
Denosumab, used in the treatment of osteoporosis and certain cancers, marketed under the trademark

XBRYK.

The Complainant is the owner of several XBRYK trademark registrations, including:

- the International Trademark Registration for XBRYK (word) No. 1778965, registered on
January 22, 2024;

- the Korean Trademark Registration for XBRYK (word) No. 4023048470000, registered on
January 20, 2025; and

- the United States of America Trademark Registration for XBRYK (word) No. 7699874, registered on
February 25, 2025.

The Domain Name was registered on November 4, 2024.

As of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Name has not resolved to any active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

First, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the

Domain Name.

Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant holds valid XBRYK trademark registrations. The Domain Name incorporates this
trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is
sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. See PepsiCo,
Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No.

D2003-0696.

The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement
and as such is typically disregarded under the first element test. See section 1.11.1 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s XBRYK trademark for purposes of the Policy. In sum, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

A right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name may be established, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, if the Panel finds any of the following circumstances:

(i)        that the Respondent has used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or

(ii)       that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or

(iii)      that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

page 4

Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.

On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the Complainant’s XBRYK trademark registration predates the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the XBRYK trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain
Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, at the time of submitting the Complaint
and as of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a website with Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links.
Such use of the Domain Name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide
offering in these circumstances. Moreover, the composition of the Domain Name, being identical to the
Complainant’s distinctive mark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Given the above, there are no circumstances in the evidence on record which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case record that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. In

sum, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes, without limitation:

(i)        circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of- pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)       circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)      circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location.

As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the XBRYK trademark predate the registration of the Domain
Name. This Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s
trademark at the time of registration. This finding is supported by the composition of the Domain Name
consisting exclusively of the XBRYK trademark. Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that
the Complainant’s XBRYK trademark is well-known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent
could not reasonably ignore the reputation of goods under this trademark. In sum, the Respondent, more

page 5

likely than not, registered the Domain Name with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the
Complainant’s XBRYK trademark.

Moreover, as of the date of this Decision, as well as at the time of submitting the Complaint, the Domain Name resolves to a parked webpage. The overall circumstances of this case, including the well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademark and the implausible good faith use to which the Domain Name may

be intrinsically put, support an inference of bad faith.

For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 Domain Name <xbryk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Piotr Nowaczyk/
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: May 26, 2025