The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Viktor Konin of Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DomainContext, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2013. On June 18, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 19, 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 June 27, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 17, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 18, 2013.
The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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 and its affiliated companies is one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics and is the trademark owner of VALIUM, protected as trademark in a multitude of countries worldwide. As an example the Complainant has provided a copy of the trademark certificate for International Trademark Registration No. R250784 (Annex 3 to the Complaint). The mark VALIUM designates a sedative and anxiolytic drug belonging to the benzodiazepine family, which enabled the Complainant to build a world-wide reputation in psychotropic medications. The aforementioned trademark has been registered by the Complainant for many years, and the priority date for the mark VALIUM is October 20, 1961.
The Domain Name completely contains the trademark VALIUM of the Complainant. The Domain Name was registered on June 10, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is requesting the Domain Name to be transferred in view of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark VALIUM. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark and has multiple registrations over the world. As Annex 3 to the Complaint, the Complainant has provided a copy of the certificate of the VALIUM International Trademark Registration No. R250784 with a priority date of October 20, 1961.
The Complainant has provided the relevant submissions regarding the three elements of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name includes the trademark VALIUM of the Complainant plus the terms “no” and “rx” (the latter meaning prescription medicines) which do not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the trademark.
Under these circumstances, it is evident to the Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VALIUM because the added letters “rx” refer to prescription medicines, which corresponds to the goods under the VALIUM mark. This means that the consumer will be confused and will identify the Domain Name as owned by or related to the Complainant.
In summary, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark owned by the Complainant, so the Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has showed ownership of the VALIUM trademark and world recognition of its products according to copies of the newspaper articles provided by the Complainant, where also is proven that its core business is pharmaceutical and health research. The Respondent did not show any rights or legitimate interests and from the evidence filed by the Complainant and the use that the Respondent is making of the web site under the Domain Name it is obvious that the Respondent did have knowledge of the existence of the well-known trademark VALIUM of the Complainant.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has provided screenprints of the web site at the Domain Name, where there is commercial activity in the area of pharmaceutical products, which is the core business for which the Complainant has registered and uses the mark VALIUM. The web site at the Domain Name offers a link to an online pharmacy where Internet users can buy generic Valium and products of the Complainant’s competitors. On the other hand the Respondent has not filed or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Under these facts the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, by using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds therefore that the Complainant satisfied the third element 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.
Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Date: August 21, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy