Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S from Bagsvaerd, Denmark, represented by Simon Tonners, Denmark.
Respondent is Private Whois Service from Nassau, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with I Corp. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 15, 2012. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to I Corp a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 18, 2012, I Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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” 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 March 1, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 21, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 23, 2012.
The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2012. 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 Danish company in the pharmaceuticals business. It holds Community trademarks and United States of America trademarks for PRANDIN both first registered more than ten years ago. The pharmaceutical marketed as “Prandin” is a drug used in the treatment of diabetes. Complainant also owns the domain name that directs consumers and others to Complainant’s main website where information on Prandin can be found. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that all elements of the three part test of paragraph 4(a)(i) to (iii) of the Policy are here readily met and that the disputed domain name should consequently be transferred to Complainant. These assertions and the facts underlying them are cited, as necessary in the discussion below. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of Complainant’s registered trademark PRANDIN. The addition of the prefix “buy” and the suffix “online” does nothing to diminish the confusing similarity with Complainant’s trademark. Indeed, these additions to the trademarked name can increase confusion and similarity as they obviously suggest that the drug “Prandin” is offered for sale on the website; a point which also goes to bad faith use below.
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has clearly affirmed and asserted that it has no contractual or other arrangement with Respondent that would permit or authorize Respondent to make use of its trademark, and that this is all the more evident as Complainant has its own website for the promotion of Prandin. There is nothing in the case file that suggests that Respondent is known by the name “Prandin” or has any rights or legitimate interest in such name. In the absence of any reply or explanation from Respondent, Complainant has here met its burden under paragraph 4 (a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered on or about October 30, 2011. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer Prandin and other pharmaceutical products for sale. It is obvious on the facts here that this was done with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in PRANDIN and an intent to profit from the same. By its use of the disputed domain name Respondent is intentionally trying to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant’s trademark and an unauthorized association with Complainant and its trademarked product.
The above constitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 11, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy