The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondent is Fundacion Private Whois of Panama, Panama. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with I Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2013. On November 20, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 25, 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 November 28, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 18, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 19, 2013.
The Center appointed Jung Wook Cho as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2014. 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 owns the trademark XENICAL (the “Trademark”), registered in a number of countries. The Complainant submitted proof of its international trademark registrations No. 612908 and No. 699154. Priority date for the Trademark is August 5, 1993.
The Domain Name was registered on October 16, 2013 and is linked to a website offering or selling the Complainant’s products and which also contains links to webpages offering competing products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is together with its affiliated companies one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics and having global operations in more than 100 countries. The Complainant’s mark XENICAL is protected as trademark in a multitude of countries worldwide.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark in that it incorporates this mark in its entirety.
The Complainant did not grant the Respondent any licence, permission, or authorization to use the Trademark in the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered in bad faith since the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known product and mark XENICAL.
The Domain Name is being used in bad faith since the Respondent has intentionally attempted (for commercial purpose) to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of the products or services posted on or linked to the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark, except for the word “vente” and a hyphen “-”. The addition of the term “vente” (meaning “sale” in French language) and a hyphen does not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Alexandr Grog,WIPO Case No. D2013-0995).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent lacks any licence, permission, authorization, or consent to use the Trademark in the Domain Name. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Center.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided a prima facie showing. Without a response, the Respondent fails to demonstrate any of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy ” (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Julian Barnes –V- Old Barn Studios Limited,WIPO Case No. D2001-0121; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110; Missoni S.p.A. v. Zhao Ke,WIPO Case No. D2011-1768).
In addition, the Panel did not find any reasonable ground to conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, considering the following facts:
(i) The registration of the Trademark preceded the registration of the Domain Name;
(ii) The Trademark has been registered in a large number of countries; and
(iii) The Trademark is well-known in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics.
The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith for the following reasons:
(i) The Domain Name is linked to the Internet website operated by the Respondent which contains links to webpages offering competing products and which offers no disclaimer regarding the lack of a relationship with the Complainant;
(ii) Consumers are likely to be confused or mislead by the Domain Name; and
(iii) It appears that the Respondent has intentionally attempted (for commercial purpose) to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of the products or services posted on or linked to the Respondent’s website (see Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,WIPO Case No. D2004-0784).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name has been registered and is being 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Jung Wook Cho
Sole Panelist
Date: January 18, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy