The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.
The Respondent is Ivan Shashkov of Ivanovo, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with B, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 10, 2013, 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 February 13, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 5, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2013.
The Center appointed Chiang Ling Li as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2013. 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’s mark VALIUM (the “Trademark”) has been registered as a trademark, including with the Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property), for pharmaceutical products.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) on January 25, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety, and that the additional generic terms “buy” and “here” do not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark. It adds that the Complainant’s use and registration of the Trademark predates the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name.
Respondent’s lack of right or interest in the Domain Name
The Complainant submits that it has the exclusive rights to the Trademark and that it has not authorised the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. It submits that the Domain Name clearly alludes to the Complainant, and that there is no reason for the Respondent to have any interest in the Domain Name.
Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Respondent undoubtedly had knowledge of the Trademark, which is well-known. It further stated that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith because the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s products or services on its website, for a commercial purpose. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent may generate unjustified revenues, and as such, is illegally capitalizing on the Trademark.
Requested remedy
The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark, due to the incorporation of the entirety of the Trademark in the Domain Name. The words “buy” and “here” do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In this case, the Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Having examined the website of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that there is no link to an online pharmacy or store, and that despite the images of credit cards at the bottom of the webpage (which denotes that payment is accepted for the products), there is in fact no payment mechanism on the website, either through the website or through a third party payment vendor.
As the Respondent used the Domain Name to set up the website which displays information on the Valium product, the Respondent must be aware of the Valium product and mark. The Domain Name implies that the Complainant’s products can be bought on the website (even if they cannot be) without appropriately disclosing its relationship with the Complaint.
The Panel thus finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Chiang Ling Li
Sole Panelist
Date: March 26, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy