WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo net Ltd.
Case No.�D2005-1086
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Lilly ICOS LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, United�States�of�America. The Complainant is represented by Baker�&�Daniels, United�States�of�America.
The Respondent is John Hopking / Neo net Ltd., Denver, Colorado, United�States�of�America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is .
The above domain name is registered with Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a�D.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) by e-mail on October 14, 2005, and in hardcopy on October 18,�2005. On October�14,�2005, the Center transmitted by email to Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a�D a request for a registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On October 17,�2005, Direct Information Pvt.�Ltd. d/b/a�D transmitted by email to the Center its verification response listing the Respondent as the current registrant of the domain names and providing the contact details for the administrative, technical and billing 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 paragraphs�2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October�28,�2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was November 17,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November�21,�2005.
The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on December�8,�2005. The Panelist has submitted a 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 Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Lilly ICOS LLC, a limited liability company registered under the laws of Delaware. It has filed for registration of the CIALIS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June�17,�1999. The CIALIS mark was registered on the principal register (Registration No.�2,724,589) on June�10,�2003.
Complainant’s decision to use the CIALIS trademark to identify its pharmaceutical product was made public in July 2001, and the Complainant began selling pharmaceutical products identified by the CIALIS mark on January�22,�2003, in the European Union, followed soon thereafter by sales in Australia and New�Zealand and since November�2003, by sales in the United�States of America.
In total, Complainant has obtained more than eighty-seven registrations for the CIALIS mark covering more than 117 countries and the CIALIS trademark is the subject of pending registration applications filed by Complainant in twenty-four countries.
Additionally, in 2004, Complainant spent approximately 39�million�United�States�dollars to market and sell its CIALIS brand product worldwide. US sales of CIALIS totaled more that $204�million in 2004 and worldwide sales of the product for 2004, were in excess of $550�million.
The Complainant also has an Internet presence, primarily through the website accessed by the domain name , domain name registered on August�10,�1999.
The Respondent registered the domain name on May�13,�2005. The disputed domain name redirect Internet users to an online pharmacy offering “Cialis Soft” tablets for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the CIALIS mark is an invented word that has a “high�degree of individuality, inherent distinctiveness and no common colloquial use” and that the CIALIS mark acts as an “identifier of the source of Complainant’s pharmaceutical product”.
The Complainant claims that “the addition of descriptive words to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity” (Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo Net Ltd., WIPO Case No.�D2005–0694) and “when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name to render the domain name confusingly similar” (EAuto v. Triple S. Auto Parts, WIPO Case No.�D2000–0047).
According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s addition of the words, “online today”, does not dispel the confusion created by the use of the Complainant’s CIALIS mark in the domain name.
Furthermore, the Complainant adds that “it is apparent from the website associated with the Domain Name that the Respondent is attempting to capitalize on the valuable reputation and goodwill of the CIALIS mark to direct Internet users to a website on which ‘Cialis Soft Tabs’ are sold.” The domain name resolves to a website that offers “Cialis Soft Tabs” for sale alongside Complainant’s CIALIS trademark and logo.
The Complainant states that it does not offer its CIALIS brand product in a soft tab and that “the Respondent is commercially benefiting from the use of Complainant’s CIALIS mark in the domain name” in spite of the fact that the “Complainant has not given Respondent permission, authorization, consent or license to use its CIALIS mark”.
According to the Complainant, “it is not a bona fide offering of goods to use the reputation of one’s well-known mark to attract Internet traffic to a website which offers cheaper and untested competitor’s products” (Lilly ICOS LLC v. The Counsel Group, WIPO Case No.�D2005–0042).
Moreover, the Complainant states that “according to Policy, paragraph�4(b)(iv), evidence of bad faith registration and use is shown when registration of a domain name occurs in order to utilize another’s well-known trademark by attracting Internet users to a website for commercial gain” (Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., NAF�Case�No.�FA 93668).
Complainant alleges that “Respondent has also demonstrated a pattern of registering domain names containing Complainant’s CIALIS mark.” Twenty-three such domain names were ordered transferred to Complainant in Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo Net Ltd., WIPO Case No.�D2005–0694.
Lastly, according to the Complainant, “respondent’s use of Complainant’s CIALIS mark in the domain name is potentially harmful to the health of many unsuspecting consumers who may purchase unlawfully pharmaceutical products sold on Respondent’s website under the mistaken impression that they are dealing with Complainant and, therefore, will be receiving safe and effective drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or other health authorities around the world”.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, paragraph�4(a) the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present to succeed:
(i) the domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; 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.
In accordance with paragraph�14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As in Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo Net Ltd., WIPO Case No.�D2005–0694, and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Jay Kim, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0891, both concerning the CIALIS mark, the Panel finds that the word CIALIS is distinctive and has no colloquial use.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s CIALIS mark as well as additional descriptive words. As stated in Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co., WIPO Case No.�D2000–1493, “generally, a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it”.
The Panel in Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo Net Ltd., WIPO Case No.�D2005-0694, among other things, found that the addition of “online” to Complainant’s CIALIS mark in the domain name , may suggest that Respondent’s website is a location where a consumer may buy CIALIS brand product. The same is true with the further addition of the word “today” in “cialisonlinetoday”.
Therefore, in accordance with previous panel decisions, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph�4(c) of the Policy gives the following three examples of ways in which a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests to a domain name:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
or
(ii) you (as an individual, business or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or
or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issues.”
The Respondent’s website appears to be an online pharmacy, where the Internet consumer may purchase CIALIS and competing products. There is no argument that the Respondent was known by the domain name or has a trademark. The evidence is that the Respondent is using the domain name for commercial use and is attempting to attract consumers with the Complainant’s trademark to purchase pharmaceuticals that are not Complainant’s CIALIS products. This is not a “bona fide offering of goods” or a “fair use of the domain name”.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel decides that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has established rights to the CIALIS trademark in 1999, and that the trademark was known in the media and was used for advertising prior to the Respondent’s first registration of a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s CIALIS mark on February�20,�2005. The Respondent appears to have been in the business of dealing in pharmaceutical products. Therefore, it appears that the registration of the domain name was made in bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent is attempting to trade on the value established by Complainant in its marks. The Respondent is using the Complainant’s CIALIS trademark in the domain name to redirect Internet consumers to its online pharmacy where these Internet consumers are mislead into thinking that they can purchase a soft tab version of genuine CIALIS brand products.
As decided in Lilly ICOS LLC v. John Hopking/Neo Net Ltd., WIPO Case No.� D2005–0694, and Lilly ICOS LLC v. East Coast Webs, Sean Lowery, WIPO Case No.�D2004–1101 “Policy Paragraph�4(b)(iv) provides that registration of a domain name in order to utilize another’s well-known trademark by attracting Internet users to a website for commercial gain constitutes a form of bad faith. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., NAF Case No.�FA 93668”.
In addition to demonstrating bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4(b)(iv), Complainant has also established the Respondent’s recidivism: the Respondent previously registered at least twenty-three other CIALIS based domain names, used, in the same manner as the domain name at issue here, in connection with online pharmacies offering counterfeit product. The Panel also notes that the Respondent submitted false contact information to the Registrar in obtaining the domain name. The Respondent’s bad faith is manifest.
Therefore, according to the Policy paragraph�4(a)(iii), the Panel decides that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of�the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2005
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy