Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108664

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant holds a broad portfolio of trademark registrations worldwide for its medicines and commercial activities, including numerous registrations comprising or featuring the term IDORSIA:

The Complainant also owns the domain name <idorsia.com>, registered on January 4, 2011, and in use since 2017, which hosts an official website containing detailed information about the Complainant and its activities. 

Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Idorsia Ltd. The Complainant, established in 2017 as a result of the demerger from Actelion, specializes in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative medicines. The Complainant has developed innovative drugs with the potential to transform the treatment paradigm in multiple therapeutic areas, including central nervous system, cardiovascular, and immunological disorders, as well as orphan diseases. Its portfolio includes products already on or close to the market – QUVIVIQ™ (daridorexant, indicated for the treatment of insomnia, including difficulties in falling asleep and/or staying asleep) and TRYVIO™/JERAYGO™ (aprocitentan, indicated for the treatment of hypertension, including resistant hypertension not adequately controlled by other antihypertensive medications) – as well as assets at various stages of clinical development. The Complainant employs approximately 500 individuals from around thirty nationalities and, according to the data available in its 2025 annual report, the Complainant reported a net revenue of CHF 214 million. 

The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark, such misspelling being merely combined with the gTLD “.com”, which must be disregarded for comparison purposes. The Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark differ only in their initial letters, “I” and “L”, the latter being visually almost indistinguishable from the former when rendered in lowercase. Therefore, it is in the view of Complainant evident that this variation has been deliberately introduced to create confusion between them.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is neither connected to nor affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has not received any license, authorization, or consent to use the IDORSIA mark, or any typographical variation thereof, whether as part of the Domain Name or otherwise. In addition, the terms “Ldorsia” and “Ldorsia.com” do not appear to have any meaning in the English language.

The Complainant notes that the Respondent has configured the Disputed Domain Name to include active MX (mail exchange) records. In the Complainant’s view, this technical configuration strongly indicates an intention on the part of the Respondent to exploit the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark for purposes such as e-mail phishing or other fraudulent schemes. This risk of abusive conduct is reinforced, in particular, by: (i) the fact that the Disputed Domain Name constitutes an evident misspelling of the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark and closely resembles its official domain name <idorsia.com>; and (ii) the fact that the only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark lies in their initial letters, “I” and “L”, the latter being visually almost indistinguishable from the former when rendered in lowercase. As a result, Internet users receiving e-mails from addresses ending in “@ldorsia.com” are highly likely to assume that such communications originate from the Complainant and its domain name <idorsia.com>, which is clearly not the case.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the IDORSIA mark through numerous trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including international, European Union, United Kingdom, Swiss, Mexican and New Zealand registrations. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IDORSIA mark. It reproduces the mark in a near-identical form, differing only by the substitution of the initial letter “I” with “L”, which is visually very similar, particularly in lowercase form. This is a classic case of typosquatting. The addition of the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the IDORSIA mark or any confusingly similar variation of it. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by “Ldorsia” or “Ldorsia.com”, nor that the Respondent holds any relevant trademark rights in those terms. The Disputed Domain Name resolves only to a registrar-generated parking page, and there is no evidence of use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Finally, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s IDORSIA mark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the nature of the domain name strongly indicates that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark. The Disputed Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s official domain name <idorsia.com>, and the substitution of “I” with “L” appears deliberately designed to create confusion. The configuration of active MX records further supports an inference of bad faith, as it creates a risk that the Disputed Domain Name could be used for deceptive e-mail communications, phishing, or other fraudulent activity. The Respondent has also not taken the opportunity to deny the Complainant’s assertions that it intends to use the Disputed Domain Name for fraudulent purposes. In the circumstances, there is no plausible good-faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name could be put.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Panel therefore orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.