WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Wyeth v. Devin Keaghley/Keaglher
Case No. D2005-1324
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Wyeth, Madison, New Jersey, United States of America, represented by Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, New York, New York, United States of America.
The Respondent is Devin Keaghley/Keaglher, Enid, Oklahoma, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December�22,�2005. On December�22,�2005, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On December�22,�2006, eNom 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”), 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 January�6,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January�26,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February�15,�2006.
The Center appointed Sandra J. Franklin as the sole panelist in this matter on March�8,�2006. 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 Wyeth is the owner of the trademark PREMARIN for conjugated estrogen products. The mark PREMARIN was first registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 1942. Complainant owns many other United States and worldwide registrations for PREMARIN, and markets and sells products under that mark throughout the world.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMARIN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Management, Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (National Arbitration Forum, July�31,�2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (February�29,�2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the PREMARIN mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO and trademark authorities worldwide. See Innomed Technologies, Inc. v. DRP Services, FA 221171 (National Arbitration Forum, February�18,�2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark.”).
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMARIN mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). The domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic word “cream” to the mark. Panels have routinely held that adding a generic term to a complainant’s mark does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Tim Healy/BOSTH, WIPO Case No. D2001-0026 (March�23,�2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). In this case, the word “cream” actually describes one of the products being sold under Complainant’s PREMARIN mark, making it even more confusing.
Respondent’s use of the “.com” gTLD in its domain name also does nothing to distinguish it from Complainant’s mark. See Hannover Ruckversicherungs Aktiengesellschaft v. Hyungki Ryu, FA 102724 (National Arbitration Forum, January�7,�2001) (finding to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (June�25,�2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 (August�21,�2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Paul Tweed, WIPO Case No. D2000-0418 (June�20,�2000) (“By not submitting a response Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.”); see also American Express Company v Fang Suhendro aka American Express Indonesia, , FA 129120 (National Arbitration Forum, December�30,�2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”)
There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii). See America Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (National Arbitration Forum, May�13,�2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by or because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also America West Airlines, Inc. v. Ilyoup Paik aka David Sanders, FA 206396 (National Arbitration Forum, December�22,�2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [] domain name.”)
Moreover, Respondent is using the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMARIN mark, to divert Internet users to a website which illegally fills prescriptions for Complainant’s PREMARIN products, originating outside Canada, through pharmacies in Canada. Use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain by misdirecting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). See Golden Bear International, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (National Arbitration Forum, October�17,�2003) (“Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s business does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMARIN mark, to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s products to a website which directly competes with Complainant. Respondent is taking advantage of the likelihood of confusion between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s well-known mark and capitalizing on the goodwill associated with the mark. See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Jaspreet Lalli, FA 95284 (National Arbitration Forum, August�21,�2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also American University v. Richard Cook, FA 208629 (National Arbitration Forum, December�22,�2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another’s mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds that Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin
Sole Panelist
Date: March�22,�2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy