WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Pfizer Inc. v. William James
Case No. D2004-0583
1. The Parties
Complainant is Pfizer Inc, New York, New York of United States of America, represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is William James, S.J. Design Consultants, Gibraltar of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Go Daddy Software.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on August 2, 2004. On August 3, 2004, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy Software a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 3, 2004, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August�26,�2004. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 27, 2004.
The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as Sole Panelist in this matter on September�8,2004, indicating that, absent exceptional circumstances, the decision would be due by September 22,�2004.
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
Complainant is a multinational pharmaceutical corporation engaged, amongst other, in the development, manufacture and marketing of prescription medicines for humans and animals. Complainant’s products include sildenafil citrate, an oral medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, marketed under the trademark “VIAGRA” .
Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registrations for the word “VIAGRA” in the United States (Registration No. 2,162,584 dated June 2, 1998 -see Annex 3) and in many other countries, including Gibraltar (see Annex 4), owned by Complainant or by its wholly owned subsidiaries.
According to the US certificate of registration, the first use of the trademark in commerce was April 6, 1998.
The VIAGRA medication was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 1998.
In June 1997 Complainant registered the domain name (Annex 5) and maintains an active web site at the URL “www.”.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on February 27, 2003 (Annex 1).
As shown by the printout of relevant pages of the web site to which the Domain Name resolves, (Annex 6), Respondent advertises and sells “Silgra” sildenafil citrate as “Generic Viagra”.
On September 8, 2004, Respondent sent the Center an e-mail stating: “There is no objection by us to the transfer or deletion of the domain name in question as it is no longer in use.”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that:
- the VIAGRA medication has attracted enormous media attention even prior to FDA approval which was also highly publicized and subject to public scrutiny and commentary;
- by virtue of this extensive publicity and post-approval advertising and promotion, the VIAGRA trademark has become famous worldwide as designating Complainant’s brand of oral therapy for erectile dysfunction and is to be considered as an extremely valuable commercial asset;
- the VIAGRA trademark is a coined and fanciful term having no denotative meaning;
- the Domain Name wholly incorporates Complainant’s trademark with the addition of common terms “buy”, “generic” and the descriptive terms of the chemical compound of Viagra “sildenafil-citrate”.
- the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark since a common term preceding or following a trademark does not create a new or different mark in which Respondent has rights;
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name;
- in particular, Respondent is not and never has been a representative of Complainant or licensed to use the VIAGRA trademark; furthermore Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name;
- Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to advertise and sell “Silagra” as a sildenafil citrate product and comparing it to the genuine VIAGRA does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
- Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith;
- Respondent clearly had knowledge of Complainant’s famous trademark prior to registration of the Domain Name;
- by taking Complainant’s trademark as his domain name, Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
In support of its contentions Complainant refers to a number of factors and to previous Panel decisions.
Consequently, Complainant requests the transfer of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A: Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
In the Panel’s view it is beyond dispute that Complainant has trademark rights in the “VIAGRA” name which is an invented word with a high degree of inherent distinctiveness and is well known in respect of a drug addressing erectile dysfunction (Pfizer Inc. v. The Magic Islands, WIPO Case No. D2003-0870; Pfizer Inc. v. Martin Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2003-0793).
The Domain Name entirely incorporates Complainant’s trademark “VIAGRA” with the addition of the common terms “buy”, “generic” and terms descriptive of the chemical compound of Viagra “sildenafil-citrate”.
It is an established principle that the mere addition of generic terms does not create a different trademark in which the respondent has rights and cannot be considered sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name at issue and the complainant’s trademark (GA Modefine SA v. Riccardo Bin Kara-Mat, WIPO Case No. D2002-0195; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0022; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Gray West International, WIPO Case No. D2000-1219; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp, WIPO Case No. D2000-0464).
With regard to the descriptive term “sildenafil-citrate” the Panel notices that the addition of the chemical compound of Viagra, rather than removing or reducing the risk of confusing similarity from the Domain Name when compared with Complainant’s trademark, increases it. Indeed, numerous previous Panel’s decisions observed that where the common noun added coincides with and in fact connotes if not precisely denotes the goods or services in respect of which the trademark incorporated in the domain name has been registered, confusing similarity is inevitable since the general public will necessarily associate it with the registered trademark (see among others Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2001-0110; Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0075; and Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd v. Steel Vertigogo, WIPO Case No. D2001-0020).
The Panel further notices that the term “buy” is plainly descriptive and generic particularly if used, like in the case in hand, for a web site that functions as an on line store or shop (Deutsche Telekom AG v. Timmy Comeau, WIPO Case No. D2003- 0377; Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jongchan kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0400); on the other hand, the word “buy” can likely be associated with Complainant’s business and therefore the combination with “VIAGRA” clearly is confusing (Yahoo! Inc. v. Jorge O. Kirovsky WIPO Case No. D2000-0428).
In the light of the above and of the fact that the addition of the gTLD.biz has no legal significance when comparing the Domain Name and Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds that this element has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) provides examples of circumstances that can demonstrate the existence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: (i) use of, or preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the fact that the respondent has commonly been known by the domain name; and (iii) legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the trademark for the term “VIAGRA” and that the Domain Name was registered by Respondent on or about February 27, 2003. Based on Complainant’s submissions, the Panel considers that at that time Complainant had acquired a considerable reputation throughout the world for the “VIAGRA” mark in respect of a drug addressing erectile dysfunction.
Complainant also contends that Respondent is not and never has been a representative of Complainant or licensed to use the VIAGRA trademark and that is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to advertise and sell an alleged generic version of Viagra, namely “Silagra”, in the attempt to compete with Complainant’s genuine product, does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. In line with previous WIPO decisions (Chanel Inc. v.Cologne Zone, WIPO Case No. D2000-1809; National Collegiate Athletic Association and March Madness Athletic Association, L.L.C. v. Mark Halpern and Front & Center Entertainment, WIPO Case No. D2000-0700; Pfizer Inc. v. The Magic Islands, WIPO Case No. D2003-0870; Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. Technilab, Inc.., WIPO Case No. D2000-1774) the Panel considers that no good faith can be assumed in Respondent’s conduct, in view of the fact that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark and is used in connection with the promotion and sale of competing products.
In the light of the above, Complainant has established prima facie evidence that none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights mentioned above applies. As stressed by many UDRP decisions, in such a case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to rebut the evidence (see among others Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia, WIPO Case No. D2002-0806 (October 16, 2002); International Hospitality Management – IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio, WIPO Case No. D2002-0683).
Because Respondent failed to submit an answer to the Complaint, and given that the allegations of the Complaint prima facie do not raise substantial doubts, the Sole Panelist accepts as true all allegations set forth in the Complaint and holds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Panel’s conclusion is fortified by Respondent’s e-mail sent to the Centre on September 8, 2004, by which he expressly represented that he had no objections to the transfer of the Domain Name, the latter being no longer in use. This further confirms Respondent’s lack of a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is convinced that Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith, to intentionally attract for commercial gain Internet users to his web site by trading on the goodwill associated with the VIAGRA brand and mark and creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site and of the products and services offered on the site (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
As mentioned in paragraph 6(A) above, Complainant’s trademark “VIAGRA” has acquired worldwide reputation, identifying the sildenafil citrate pharmaceutical product developed, manufactured and marketed by Complainant. It is therefore inconceivable that Respondent registered the Domain Name unaware of Complainant’s rights in its VIAGRA mark and with an intent to use it in good faith. Respondent appears rather to have intentionally registered the Domain Name entirely incorporating Complainant’s mark, to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the VIAGRA trademark.
Furthermore, the printout of relevant pages of Respondent’s web site “www.” (Annex 6) show that Respondent has been using the Domain Name to promote and sell “Silgra” as a sildenafil citrate product comparing it to Viagra. This is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy (Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Liu Xingdong, WIPO Case No. D2003-0408; Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110; The Body Shop International plc v. A-Team/ Lasse Nygaard, WIPO Case No. DAS2003-0001; Bartercard Ltd & Bartercard International Pty Ltd. v. Ashton-Hall Computer Services, WIPO Case No. D2000-0177).
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, that the Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Anna Carabelli
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 22, 2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy