The Complainants are ISISPHARMA France SAS of Wasquehal, France and ISIS PHARMA GmbH of Brig, Switzerland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Nikolay Petkov, Kin Eood of Pleven, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2018. On January 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2018.

The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on February 28, 2018. 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 Complainants ISISPHARMA France SAS (hereinafter, “the first Complainant”) and ISIS PHARMA GmbH (hereinafter, “the second Complainant”) are fully owned by the French company Dewavrin SA. Dewavrin SA owns the second Complainant through its fully owned subsidiary Compagnie Lainiere.

The Complainants are the owners of multiple trademark registrations across various jurisdictions. Furthermore, the second Complainant licenses its trademarks to the first Complainant, which sells Isispharma branded products.
The Complainants have produced and marketed their proprietary line of skin care products under the trademark ISISPHARMA since 2002. The Isispharma products are manufactured in the Complainants’ own production units in France in conformity with French and European Union regulations.

The second Complainant is the owner of the French trademark registration No. 3651571 for ISIS PHARMA
DERMATOLOGIE (figurative mark), registered on May 18, 2009, in classes 3 and 5; the French trademark registration No. 3334692 for ISISPHARMA (word mark), registered on January 13, 2005, in classes 3 and 5; the European Union Trade Mark registration No. 008296221 for ISISPHARMA (word mark), registered on April 26, 2010, in classes 3 and 5; and the International trademark registration No. 1209350 for ISISPHARMA (word mark), registered on February 4, 2014, in classes 3 and 5.

The Complainants’ parent company Dewavrin SA is the owner of the domain name , which was registered on November 13, 2002 and is pointed to a website providing information on ISISPHARMA products.

The disputed domain names , and were registered on July 11, 2017 and are pointed to websites displaying the Complainants’ trademarks and offering for sale purported Isispharma skincare products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark ISISPHARMA, since they encompass the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive term “buy” and the geographical indicators “uk” and “usa”.

The Complainants also state that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because: i) the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainants and has not been given permission to use the Complainants’ trademarks in any manner; ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; iii) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, since it is pointing the disputed domain names to websites imitating the Complainants’ website and providing no disclaimer as to the lack of affiliation with the Complainants, thus conveying the false impression that the Respondent is authorized to