The Complainant is Pierre Fabre Medicament, Castres Cedex, France, represented by SCP Deprez, Guignot et Associés, France.
The Respondent is Private Whois , 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 April 4, 2012. On April 4, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to I Corp a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 2012, I Corp. 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 April 11, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 1, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2012.
The Center appointed Mr. Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 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
Founded in 1961 in France by M. Pierre Fabre, and present in over 130 countries, the Complainant is a worldwide company for medicine and dermo cosmetics products. It is the 2nd largest French pharmaceutical laboratory in the field of cancerology, urology and cardiology. The company's business activity is focused on research, development, manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics, prescription medicines and family health products.
The Complainant owns the French trademark DEXERYL, first registered on March 10, 1997, and the International trademark DEXERYL, first registered on May 25, 1999.
The trademark DEXERYL has been used for many years for adjunctive treatment of states of dryness of the skin, such as eczema, and for superficial burns.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on July 2, 2006. The webpage of the Respondent redirects Internet users to websites selling cream to treat eczema and psoriasis and to websites selling the cream "Dexeryl" which are not affiliated with the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts the following:
The disputed domain name is identical to the trademark DEXERYL for which the Complainant has registered trademark rights.
Given the well-known arbitrary DEXERYL mark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademarks and company name when it registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Moreover, it seems clear that the Respondent provided false and misleading contact information since the Whois requests to contact the owner by email only, while there is no valid email address indicated.
The webpage of the Respondent redirects Internet users to websites selling cream to treat eczema and psoriasis and to websites selling the cream "Dexeryl" which are not affiliated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name is thus used in bad faith to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s DEXERYL trademarks. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It may be concluded under the circumstances of this case that the Respondent must have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation when the disputed domain name was registered.
The disputed domain name is being used to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to competing products and services, with the intention to generate income for the Respondent. Such conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use and the Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy