The Complainant is Les Laboratoires Servier, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., United States of America / N U, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2019. On May 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 21, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 27, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 19, 2019.
The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 2019. 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 is Les Laboratoires Servier, one of the largest independent French pharmaceutical groups, present in 149 countries worldwide.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for SERVIER around the world, including the European Union trademark registration No. 4279171, granted on October 15, 2007, in classes 5, 35, 41, 42 and 44; and the International trademark registration No. 549079, granted on January 19, 1990, in classes 1, 3, 5, 10, 16, 35, 41 and 42.
The Complainant also owns numerous domain names consisting of the mark SERVIER, including the domain name , created on December 28, 1998 and , created on December 17, 2004, among others.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 26, 2019 and the website is currently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name reproduces the well-known mark SERVIER and that the addition of the generic term “job” may be understood by Internet users as making reference to career opening, linked to the Human Resources team of the Complainant, which is likely to create confusion among the public. The Complainant adds that Internet users will be inclined to think the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant, which is not the case.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without authorization, that it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that it has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the disputed domain name.
In addition, the Complainant says that the Respondent’s lack of use of the disputed domain name or preparation to use the disputed domain name demonstrates no intent to use it with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, a name server query indicates that the disputed domain name is linked to email servers, therefore very likely to be used to send fraudulent emails.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized to register and use the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the well-known mark SERVIER. The Complainant also says that the sole detention of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in an attempt to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark and company name, is a strong evidence of bad faith.
Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for SERVIER around the world, including European Union and International registrations.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SERVIER in its entirety. The addition of the generic term “job” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. In this regard, it is the general view among UDRP panels that the addition of merely dictionary, descriptive or geographical words to a trademark in a domain name normally would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (for example, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark SERVIER.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, there is evidence in the Complaint that the disputed domain name is linked to email servers, therefore the Respondent would be able to send and receive emails.
The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, does not correspond to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark SERVIER is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and has been used since a long time. Also, the Complainant registered many domain names consisting of the mark SERVIER, including the domain names and .
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark SERVIER in its entirety and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant’s SERVIER mark is distinctive, represents the surname of the Complainant’s founder and is widely known. Thus, a domain name that comprises such a well-known mark is suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. The addition of the term “job” is indeed very likely to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is related to career openings and that it belongs to the Complainant.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to somehow illegitimately benefit from the registration of the disputed domain name and/or to disrupt the business of the Complainant.
This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the trademark SERVIER has been demonstrated. In the circumstances, passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed 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 disputed domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: July 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy