WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Nycomed Danmark Aps v. Patrick Granberg
Case No. D2006-0780
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Nycomed Danmark Aps, Roskilde, Denmark, represented by Delacour Law Firm, Denmark.
The Respondent is Patrick Granberg, Holland, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed Domain Name is registered with DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2006. On June 23, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name at issue. On June 28, 2006, DSTR Acquisition VII, LLC d/b/a D transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 29, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July�19,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 20, 2006.
The Center appointed Andrea Jaeger-Lenz as the sole panelist in this matter on August�2, 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
The Complainant, Nycomed Danmark ApS, is the Danish subsidiary of the Nycomed Group, a pharmaceutical company founded in 1874 in Norway, which since 1999, has been rapidly expanding throughout Europe. By the end of 2005, the total net turnover of the Nycomed Group in 2005 was an estimated EUR 747.5 millions.
One of the Nycomed Group’s products in the 1990’ties was an appetite suppressant with the active ingredients ephedrine and caffeine, a prescription drug marketed under the trademark LETIGEN. In 2000 and 2001 around 90,000 persons in Denmark alone were treated with LETIGEN.
The Complainant has registered the following trademarks:
LETIGEN, Danish Trademark No. VR 1989 03513, registered on June 16, 1989, in Class 5.
LETIGEN, Swedish Trademarks No. 250503, registered on June 6, 1993 and No. 357580, registered on August 30, 2002 in Class 5.
The Domain name was registered on January 24, 2001.
Following an intensive media debate in Denmark during 2002 as to whether appetite suppressants including ephedrine and caffeine (such as LETIGEN) could have serious adverse effects, the Complainant decided to end the production and sale of LETIGEN by the end of 2002. The Complainant’s trademark registration of LETIGEN in class 5 in Denmark is enforceable, the trademark is registered for a period covering until June�16, 2009. A Google search for “letigen” on June 16, 2006 showed approximately 46,000 hits.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on October 7, 2003. The disputed Domain name does not resolve into a website but is linking to the website under the Domain Name . On this website, the company Umbrella Enterprises Inc. is marketing and offering for sale the food supplement LEPIGEN, an appetite suppressant containing ephedrine and caffeine. LEPIGEN is not a prescription drug as LETIGEN, but one of several unauthorized appetite suppressants being traded via internet after the withdrawal of LETIGEN from the market.
The Swedish trademark authorities (Patent- och Registreringsverket), by decision of October 4, 2005, rejected an application for trademark registration of LEPIGEN due to confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN.
The facts mentioned above have been established on the basis of the Complaint and documents attached thereto, which have remained uncontested, in accordance with paragraph�3(b)(xv) of the Rules.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed Domain name and contends that each of the three requirements specified in paragraph�4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this case. In particular, the Complainant claims that:
(i) The Domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark “LETIGEN” in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant, first of all, contends that, as consistently stated in previous decisions by WlPO Arbitration and Mediation Center panels the mere addition of the .com TLD suffix shall not be taken into consideration when evaluating whether a .com Domain Name shall rightfully be considered to be identical with or confusingly similar to a third party trade mark.
As a consequence, it considers that the Domain Name to be identical with the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain name in dispute.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the Domain Name for the purpose of attracting customers to the website under the Domain Name promoting inter alia the illegal food supplement LEPIGEN with ephedrine and caffeine. It claims that Respondent, in doing so, creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well known trademark LETIGEN.
Additionally, it claims that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name serves the sole purpose to illegally create a false impression in the market of a connection between the Respondent’s product LEPIGEN and the product formerly marketed by the Complainant under the trade mark LETIGEN. It finds that such conduct constitutes illegal benefit from third parties’ trademarks and reputation and is clearly contrary to basic trademark principles as well as to the rules on protection of commercial identity.
Complainant further contends that there is an obvious risk of the consumers being lead to believe that the illegal product LEPIGEN is in any way related to the previous prescription drug LETIGEN and thus to the Complainant. It claims that, according to the Swedish Medicines Agency, marketing and sale of LEPIGEN is prohibited in Sweden and that, therefore, it is very damaging for its company to be related to products as LEPIGEN that are illegal or even harmful to the health of consumers.
It concludes that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name must be considered to be illegal and damaging for the Complainant and that, therefore, it has at least substantiated prima facie evidence of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests by the Respondent in relation to the disputed Domain Name and that the burden of proof thus shifts to the Respondent.
(iii) The Domain Name in dispute was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant claims that the registration and use of the disputed Domain Name in bad faith are due to the Complainant’s rights in the well reputed trademark LETIGEN.
It contends that first, LETIGEN is a well-known and reputed trademark and, secondly, Respondent has registered as Domain Name a designation identical to the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN. Thirdly, Complainant states that Respondent is using the Domain Name for commercial gain by attracting customers to a website promoting inter alia the illegal and unauthorized food supplement LEPIGEN and thus not only creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN but also a serious risk of damaging the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. It concludes that Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark rights in LETIGEN as Respondent sold products under the confusingly similar name LEPIGEN claiming to serve the same purposes as those previously sold by the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions by the date fixed by the Center in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a).
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the following facts must be established in order to grant the Complainant the requested remedy:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The distinctive part of the contested domain is “letigen”. For the purpose of deciding whether a Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “.com” must be disregarded as indicating solely the nature of a top level domain, Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. KazaaL Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0402).
The contested Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph�4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
a. The Respondent, by not responding, has failed to provide any evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph�4(c) of the Policy or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name in dispute.
b. The Respondent’s name “Patrick Granberg” bears no similarity to the contested Domain Name.
c. However, it is a moot point whether Respondent, with the direct link to the website “”, is using the Domain Name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” according to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. In this respect, it is crucial whether Umbrella Enterprises, the company operating the website, is offering goods or services bona fide. This being denied, the Respondent with his use of the Domain Name or rather by letting a third party make use of , would participate in the illegitimate business of a third party.
aa. The Complainant has pointed out that Umbrella Enterprises, on its website “”, promotes and offers for sale the illegal food supplement LEPIGEN with ephedrine and caffeine. It contends that this usage of the website creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN, that it exploits the goodwill and the reputation of the trademark LETIGEN and that the Complainant’s reputation could be damaged if the company is related to illegal products that could be harmful to health. As a proof, the Complainant has submitted the decision of the Swedish trademark authorities (Patent- och Registreringsverket) of October 4, 2005 rejecting an application for trademark registration of LEPIGEN due to confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN.
bb. The Panel finds that the Complainant has submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. Taking into account the difficulty to prove a negative fact without specific knowledge of Respondent’s rights or interests there is a constant ruling in UDRP decisions that the Complainant’s submission of a prima facie evidence is sufficient in this case, Intocast Ag v. Lee Daeyoon, WIPO Case No. D2000-1467; Anti Flirt S.A. and Mr. Jaques Amsellem v. WCVC, WIPO Case No. D2000-1553; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
cc. Further, the Panel takes into account that the spelling of the product LEPIGEN and the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN is almost identical and that the marketing of the product LEPIGEN on the website “” is aiming at the Scandinavian market of appetite suppressants, precisely the same target that Complainant’s product LETIGEN used to focus on. The combination of both circumstances permits the conclusion that Complainant’s well known trademark LETIGEN is being exploited for commercial purposes.
dd. It has remained uncontested that the product LEPIGEN is unauthorized and thus because of the high degree of similarity of LETIGEN and LEPIGEN t could cause damage to the Complainant’s reputation. In view of the identity of goods and the uncontested media debate regarding LETIGEN, the choice of the product LEPIGEN cannot have been without purpose. Thus the Panel draws the conclusion that Umbrella Enterprises, on its website “”, is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
As a consequence, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s use of the contested Domain Name to link to Umbrella Enterprises’ website “” does not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove the registration as well as the use in bad faith of the disputed Domain Name.
aa. Registration in bad faith
The Panel is satisfied with the Complainant’s allegation that Respondent must have been aware of the well-known trademark LETIGEN when registering an identical Domain Name in October 2003.
Indeed the Complainant has submitted only very little evidence to prove that its LETIGEN mark is well-known. The Panel cannot estimate the marketing efforts Complainant used to make for the promotion of LETIGEN nor is it possible to verify the estimated number of users of the drug, as Complainant has not submitted any statistical documents provided by its company.
On the other hand, Complainant has submitted the proof that its trademark LETIGEN has been registered in Denmark already in 1989 and in Sweden already in 1993. Also, in June 2006, three and a half years after the expiry of the production of the drug, there was still the impressing number of 46.700 Google matches for LETIGEN, indicating that the drug, in its best time between the years 2000 and 2002, had gained an enormous popularity at least in the Scandinavian part of Europe. Considering also that LETIGEN is a pure fantasy designation and in particular considering the identity of goods for which Respondent lets the Domain Name be used, it appears most unlikely that the Respondent in October 2003 did not know of the Complainant’s trademark and register the fantasy name “letigen” bona fide (see Designor OY AB v Bamse Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2001-0643; , Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Henrik Monssen, WIPO Case No. D2003-0275).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent was probably aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Domain Name in dispute. This finding leads to the conclusion that the Domain Name in dispute was registered in bad faith.
bb. Use in bad faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy enumerates in several factors, without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the use of a Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, paragraph 4(b)(iv) states:
“(iv) by using the Domain Name, you [the Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
By using the Domain Name that is identical to the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the location and of the products and services on the website the location is linked with. Moreover the direct link of the Domain Name to the website of a competing company offering the drug LEPIGEN, an imitation of the product marketed under the protected trademark, is the typical case of a bad faith use. Offering an imitation of the product marketed under a protected trademark is the typical case of a bad faith use because it attracts customers who were not looking for the imitation of the drug but for the original product, known by the trademark LETIGEN. Such use of a trademark can create customer confusion or dilution of the mark, The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics, d/b/a Memory World, WIPO Case No. D2000-0474; R�dio Globo S.A. v. R�dio Morena, WIPO Case No. D2000-1558; Yamaha Corporation v. Zhoulei, WIPO Case No. D2004-0126).
Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the contested Domain Name has the purpose of commercial gain. It appears unlikely that Respondent set a direct link to a direct competitor without considering a potential economic profit.
For all the foregoing reasons, the disputed Domain Name is also being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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.
��������������������������������������������
Andrea Jaeger-Lenz
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy