LONZS.com Domain Name Arbitration Case: Swiss company Lonza loses WIPO case

The World Intellectual Property Organization's Arbitration and Mediation Center recently announced its ruling on the LONZS.com domain name dispute. Swiss life sciences giant Lonza Ltd. filed a complaint against the LONZS.com domain name, alleging a "bad faith cybersquatting" against its registration. The arbitration panel ultimately rejected Lonza's claim.

Founded in 1897, Lonza provides manufacturing services for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and nutrition sectors, with revenue exceeding $6.5 billion in 2024. Its LONZA trademark dates back to 1913 and is registered in multiple jurisdictions worldwide, including Hong Kong and the United States. Its official website is lonza.com. Lonza argues that LONZS.com simply replaces the letter "a" in "LONZA" with the adjacent "s" on the keyboard, a classic example of "typo hijacking" that is misleading and confusing to users.

The defendant, Hong Kong-based Cykon Technology Limited, registered LONZS.com in April 2018. It also registered a batch of 16 random, five-letter domain names, most of which were meaningless, fictitious strings. The defendant claimed that these domain names were a commercial investment in short domain names and were not targeted at any particular brand. The defendant emphasized that it had never heard of Lonza and had not used the domain name for traffic diversion, monetization, or other Lonza-related marketing. The webpage only displayed the phrase "Welcome Business Cooperation" in its early days, and it had not received any inquiries in seven years.

The arbitration panel determined that LONZS.com and the LONZA trademark are highly similar in glyph form, meeting the first requirement of "confusing similarity." However, regarding the crucial issue of "bad faith registration and use," Lonza failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was aware of its trademark at the time of domain name registration or intended to profit from its reputation.

The ruling noted that while Lonza's brand is well-known within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, it primarily targets business-to-business clients, not ordinary consumers. The defendant is located in Hong Kong and has not used the domain name for any commercial activities related to Lonza, so it cannot be simply presumed to have acted in bad faith. Furthermore, while the defendant has a history of losing several UDRP cases, the overall rulings do not indicate a systematic pattern of malicious cybersquatting.

Ultimately, the WIPO arbitration panel dismissed Lonza's complaint, and LONZS.com remains in the defendant's possession. This case reinforces the fact that in UDRP disputes, right holders must not only prove that the domain name is similar to the trademark but also demonstrate "bad faith" in its registration and use; otherwise, obtaining a transfer order is difficult.