The Complainant is Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. of Basel, Switzerland and Nutley, New Jersey, United States of America, represented internally.
The Respondent is Private Whois of Nassau, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, the Registrar 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” 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 25, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2012.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 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
The Complainant is a member of the Roche Group one of the largest pharmaceutical groups in the world. The Complainant is the registered proprietor in the United States of America of the trademark ACCUTANE for pharmaceutical products. The first use in the United States was in 1982. Accutane is a dermological preparation.
The Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name . The disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2012. The website, until recently, advertised the sale of “Generic Accutane (Isotretinoin® equivalent)” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark ACCUTANE. The addition of the generic word “express” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further submits the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has received no consent or license from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Complainants submits that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith with the intention of attracting Internet users to the website under the disputed domain name to purchase “Generic Accutane”. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of domain name hijacking that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel agrees fully with the Complainants arguments and accordingly will make on a short decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the Complainant’s registered trademark ACCUTANE and the generic word “express”. It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. The use made by the Respondent of the website under the disputed domain name where the Complainant’s trademark features prominently and generic products are sold make it hard to imagine that the Respondent could ever establish any rights or legitimate interests. Clearly, none of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
This case clearly falls with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you 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.” 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 25, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy