The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.
The Respondent is Privacy-P/Henry Nguyen Gong of Nimes, Languedoc-Roussillon, France. 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 22, 2013. On February 25, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 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 27, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 19, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2013.
The Center appointed Chiang Ling Li as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 in various countries around the world, including under the Madrid System covering pharmaceuticals.
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) was created on February 13, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
(i) The language of the proceedings
The first issue that was raised by the Complainant was the language of the current proceedings. The Complainant anticipated that the language of the Registration Agreement was Chinese, as the Registrar was located in China, however submitted its Complaint in the English language and requested that the language of the proceedings be English.
(ii) 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 “online” and “ok” 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.
(iii) Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
The Complainant submits that it has the exclusive rights to the Trademark and that it has not authorised its use in the Domain Name. It says 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. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for commercial gain with the purpose of capitalizing on the fame of the Trademark.
(iv) Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant says that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Respondent undoubtedly had knowledge of the Trademark, which is well-known. It further said that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith because the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to the Domain Name’s 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.
(v) Requested Remedy
The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings (i) The language of the proceedings
The concerned Registrar has confirmed the language of the registration agreement as English, so the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, determines that English shall be the language of the proceedings. (ii) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark
The entire Trademark was incorporated in the Domain Name. The word “online” and “ok” do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark in the opinion of the Panel.
The Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been met. (iii) Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). In this case, the Complainant submits that it has the exclusive rights to the Trademark and that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use in the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not responded to the allegations of the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been met. (iv) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Domain Name was used by the Respondent to establish a website that directs Internet users to an online pharmacy. Previous decisions have ruled that such an act constitutes registration and use in bad faith (see Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-0784).
The Panel is satisfied that the third element of the Policy has been met. 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: April 8, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy