WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Saludcoop Entidad Promotira De Salud Organismo Cooperativo “SALUDCOOP” v. Prosa Ltda c/o Zafra Alirio and Viktor Cherkasov Case No. D2010-0593 1. The Parties
Complainant is Saludcoop Entidad Promotira De Salud Organismo Cooperativo “SALUDCOOP” of Bogotá, Colombia, represented internally.
Respondents are Prosa Ltda c/o Zafra Alirio of Cucuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia and Viktor Cherkasov of Kharkov, Ukraine. However, pursuant to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 dated June 25, 2010, the Panel has removed Respondent Viktor Cherkasov from this proceeding. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and are registered with R. However, pursuant to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 dated June 25, 2010, the domain name has been deleted from the proceeding. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 16, 2010. On April 16, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to R a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 19, 2010, R transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 20, 2010 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 29, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 30, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 20, 2010. No response was filed.
The Center appointed Clark W. Lackert as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 2010. 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.
The initial Complaint cited three (3) domain names, specifically , , and . As noted above, the verification response provided by R disclosed registrant and contact information which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. Specifically, the verification response indicated that the domain name was owned by an individual who was not identified in the Complaint.
In the amendment to the Complaint, Complainant provided revised registrant and contact information for the domain name and petitioned for the , , and domain names to be consolidated in the single Complaint based upon the similarities in the domain names, the similarities in the content displayed on the websites concerned, and prior ownership of the domain name by Prosa Ltda.
The Panelist reviewed the amendment to the Complaint and did not perceive any sufficient connection between Respondent and the registrant of to warrant the bringing of a single Complaint against both parties in accordance with the UDRP and the Rules. Accordingly, the Panel issued Order No. 1 on June 25, 2010 wherein the Panel declined to consider the Complaint as it pertained to the disputed domain name and omitting the domain name from the present proceeding. Further, the Panel invited Complainant to file a separate complaint regarding the domain name if desired.
Accordingly, this decision pertains only to the disputed domain names and . 4. Factual Background
Complainant is a cooperative organization based in the Republic of Colombia and was organized in 1994. Complainant specializes in the commercialization of medical services and has developed and maintained clinics in multiple cities in Colombia including Bogota, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, and Cúcuta. Complainant currently operates 33 clinics under the SALUDCOOP name.
Complainant owns nineteen (19) Colombian trademark registrations incorporating SALUDCOOP. Complainant also uses SALUDCOOP in word form as a trademark.
Based upon the information in the Complaint and the verification response provided by the Registrar, Respondent is a company by the name of Prosa Ltda, Zafra Alirio located in Cúcuta, Colombia. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant claims to be one of the top 10 companies in Colombia and alleges that the disputed domain names and were registered by Respondent with the intention of disrupting the business of Complainant. Complainant maintains that Respondent's manner of use of the domain names is an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent's web sites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's services. Complainant requests that the domain names and be transferred to Complainant. B. Respondent
No response to the Complaint was filed. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain names and are identical to the trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant owns nineteen (19) Colombian trademark registrations for marks incorporating SALUDCOOP and trades under the SALUDCOOP name. Complainant has established rights and interest in the term SALUDCOOP.
The disputed the domain names and were registered on October 6, 2004 and June 1, 2007, respectively. Complainant's trademark rights in SALUDCOOP precede both domain name registrations.
There is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the term SALUDCOOP.
There is no evidence that Respondent has any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue. Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
There is evidence suggesting that the links displayed on Respondent's websites are efforts to trade off the goodwill of Complainant's trademark. Specifically, Respondent's websites consist primarily of links relating to healthcare and social services similar to those provided by Complainant. The incorporation of third party links regarding services competitive to those provided under another party's trademark supports a finding that a domain name registrant was aware of the other party's mark at the time the domain name was registered. Lancôme Parfums et Beaute & Compagnie v. D Nigam, Privacy Protection Services / Pluto Domains Services Private Limited,WIPO Case No. D2009-0728 (July 25, 2009). The content of the websites suggests that Respondent is aware of Complainant. Moreover, Respondent is based in the same country where Complainant has established rights and is located in Cucuta, a city where Complainant has operated a health clinic since the year 2000.
By registering the domain names and and offering links to third party services directly competitive with those of Complainant, Respondent is diverting traffic from Complainant's and domain names, which were registered by Complainant as early as 2003 and 2004, respectively. This is a violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. There is no evidence in the record to refute this contention.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Clark W. Lackert
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 28, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy