The Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Israel, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 1245667261, Canada / Cesar Hernandez, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 7, 2020. On January 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 7, 2020, 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 January 9, 2020 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 14, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2020. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 2020. 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 a multinational pharmaceutical company founded in 1901 in Israel. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia, the following trademark registrations for the term “teva”. - United States Trademark registration No. 1567918 for TEVA, registered on November 28, 1989; and In addition, the Complainant has registered a number of domain names containing the term “teva”, such us: - The Disputed Domain Name The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s TEVA trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. The mere addition of the letters “nn” will be interpreted as a reference to the letter “m”, which is the last letter of the word “pharm”. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the addition of the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD“) “.com” does not differentiate the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant’s trademark. Rights or legitimate interests The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not known by the word “teva”. In addition, the Complainant states that the name “teva” is not a descriptive term serving to indicate specific characteristics of any goods or services. Thus, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith as the Respondent has knowingly registered a confusingly domain name, that consist of a well-known trademark, in order to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case: (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 Complainant has demonstrated that it has trademark rights over the term “teva”. Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s TEVA trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “pharnn” does not alter the assessment of confusing similarity. Moreover, the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark, which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Disputed Domain Name The Respondent has not denied these assertions because of its default. The Panel infers from the current circumstances that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and prior rights at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use and does not change the Panel’s views in this respect. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is, therefore, satisfied. 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
- United States Trademark registration No. 2353386 for TEVA, registered on May 30, 2000.
-
Sole Panelist
Date: February 19, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy