Complainant is Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley, New Jersey, United States of America, internally represented.
Respondent is N/A, Artem Konovalov, Moskva, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Names , ,
and are registered with DomainContext, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2013. On March 5, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On March 7, 2013, the Registrar 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 12, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 4, 2013.
The Center appointed Ugur G. Yalçiner as the sole panelist in this matter on April 26, 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
Complainant is a company established in the United States, engaged in research and development of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. It is a member of the Roche Group, one of the worlds’s leading research-focused healthcare groups and having global operations in more than 100 countries.
Complainant has rights over the ACCUTANE trademark for which it holds several trademark registrations since 1973 in United States with first usage in 1982.
Complainant also has registered domain name .
Respondent appears to be an individual from Moskva, the Russian Federation.
The Registration dates of the Disputed Domain Names are as below:
on February 22, 2013,
on February 22, 2013,
on February 21, 2013 and
on February 222013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant’s assertions may be summarized as follows:
Complainant is a member of the Roche Group, one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups and having global operations in more than 100 countries. Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE is registered on behalf of Complainant in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as of August 28, 1973. ACCUTANE is an alternative Trademark (US version) for the trademark ROACCUTAN. The ROACCUTAN trademark is protected in a multitude of countries worldwide. The Disputed Domain Names of Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark seeing that they all incorporate this mark in its entirety. The suffixes “30mg”, “online”, “buy”, “withoutprescription” do not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark. Therefore Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.
Complainant has exclusive rights for ACCUTANE, and no license/permission/authorization respectively consent was granted to use ACCUTANE in the Disputed Domain Names. Disputed Domain Names clearly allude to the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to pharmacies online offering generic ACCUTANE as well as other drugs.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith since at the time of the registration i.e. in February 2013, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's well-known product/mark ACCUTANE. The Disputed Domain Names are also being used in bad faith. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's well-known mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent's websites for commercial purpose. Respondent, by using the Disputed Domain Names, is intentionally misleading the consumers and confusing them by making them believe that the websites behind those links are associated or recommended by Complainant. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide the Complaint on the grounds of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show:1 (i) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel’s view, Complainant has rights in the ACCUTANE mark considering the trademark registrations in the United States since 1973.
The Disputed Domain Names entirely incorporate the term “accutane” with other generic words such as “30mg”, “online”, “buy”, “withoutprescription”. Considering that the Disputed Domain Names aim at offering Internet users/consumers online goods for purchase and also considering that these pharmaceutical; these words are not distinctive and obviously do not add distinctiveness to Disputed Domain Names.2 ACCUTANE is not a common used word for customers. It also is determined that the trademark ACCUTANE is well-known in the pharaceutical sector.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that Complainant did not grant any licence, permission or authorization to the Respondent to use the ACCUTANE mark in the Disputed Domain Names.
The Panel also notes that Respondent does not appear to have either a trademark application nor registration for the term “accutane”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
The evidence adduced by Complainant show that before the registration date of the Disputed Domain Names (2013) Complainant had obtained registration for the mark ACCUTANE on 1973.
Since trademark ACCUTANE is a distinctive and well-known trademark for the sector, Respondent was, or should have been, aware of Complainant’s marks at that time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Names, which, in the circumstances of this case, is proof of bad faith registration.
The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Names are active and resolve to online pharmacies where generic Accutane, as well as other drugs, are being sold. Therefore, it is concluded that Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of Policy.
Given the aforesaid, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith. 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 Names , , and be transferred to Complainant.
Ugur G. Yalçiner
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 10, 2013
1 See Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Relson Limited,WIPO Case No. DWS2001-0003: “Each of the three stated elements are made up of a number of facts, each of which has to be proven in order for the Complainants to succeed [...] Facts are proven through evidence [...] Mere “assertions” are nothing more than argument and must in each case be based on facts proved through evidence”.
2 See Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. Vural Kavak,WIPO Case No. D2010-0010: “As a general expression, “mobile” does not distinguish Complaninant’s mark from the Disputed Domain Name. Additionally, general term “mobile” is related to Complainant’s business area, therefore, it can cause likelihood of confusion .”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy