WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lilly ICOS LLC v. Levan Odilavadze

Case No. D2005-1140

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lilly ICOS LLC of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America, represented by Baker & Daniels LLP of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.

The Respondent is Levan Odilavadze of Tbilisi, Georgia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Go Daddy Software (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) by email on November 2, 2005, and in hard copy on November�8,�2005. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar by email on November�4,�2005. The Registrar responded by email the same day, confirming that it was the registrar and the Respondent was the registrant of the Domain Name, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) applied to the registration, that the Domain Name would remain locked during this proceeding, and that the registration agreement was in English and contained a submission to the jurisdiction at the location of the principal office of the Registrar; and providing the contact details in respect of the registration on its Whois database; but stating that it had not received a copy of the Complaint.

On November�9,�2005, the Center notified the Complainant by email that the Complaint was deficient in that it incorrectly identified the registrar of the Domain Name. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint correctly identifying the registrar by email on the same day and in hard copy on November�15,�2005.

The Center verified on November 16, 2005, that the Complaint as amended satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November�16,�2005. The respective tracking records confirm that the notifications were delivered to the sole postal and sole email addresses in the contact details on the Registrar’s Whois database, as well as to “postmaster@”. The notification was also sent to the Registrar.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December�6,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December�12,�2005.

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on December�16,�2005. 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.

It seems likely that the Complainant failed to send the Complaint to the Registrar as required by the Supplemental Rules, paragraph 4(b), since the identification of the registrar in the Complaint was incorrect. However, any deficiency in this regard was cured by the Center sending a copy of the Complaint to the Registrar when it formally notified it to the Respondent.

Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint as amended complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly served on the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant supplies a pharmaceutical product for the treatment of erectile dysfunction under the trademark CIALIS. The generic name of the product is Tadalafil.

The Complainant applied for registration of the mark CIALIS in the United States on June�17,�1999, and now has registrations for this mark in respect of over 117 countries, including the Unites States.

The Complainant announced its intention to sell the product under this mark in July�2001, and its first sales were made under it in the European Union on January�22,�2003. The domain name has been used for a website promoting the product since June�2001. There has been extensive worldwide publicity relating to the Complainant’s launch and sales of the product under the mark. In 2004, the Complainant spent in excess of US $39 million on marketing the product under the mark and its worldwide sales of the product under the mark exceeded US $550 million.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on October�9,�2004, and is using it for a website which contains sets of links to four online pharmacies. The first set on the Respondent’s homepage, under the heading “Generic Cialis (Tadalafil) Drugstore”, provides links to an online pharmacy called “BudgetMedecines” at “”. This purports to provide generic equivalents to the Complainant’s CIALIS product. The prices of these products are emphasized in red on