Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Israel, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 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 14, 2020. On January 15, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 15, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 15, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 15, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 9, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 10, 2020. The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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 According to the information provided, Complainant is a global pharmaceutical company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines. It operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant presence in the United States, Europe, and other markets. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant owns multiple registrations for the trademark TEVA, including the United States trademark TEVA, registration number 1567918, registered on November 28, 1989. The Domain Name The trademark registrations of Complainant were issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEVA trademark as it directly incorporates Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety. The trademark is clearly recognizable in the Domain Name. Complainant further claims that the mere addition of the word “support” and the country identifier “usa” only reinforces the (false) association between the trademarks and the Domain Name. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services where the Domain Name incorporates a trademark which is not owned by Respondent, nor is Respondent known by the name “TEVA”. The trademark registered by Complainant is not a name one would legitimately choose as a domain name without having specific rights to such name. This name is certainly not a descriptive term serving to indicate specific characteristics of any goods or services. It is evident from the record that Respondent has not used the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant submits that the Domain Name redirects to various websites and at times to a website that requests the user to download information which has malware. Complainant submits that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Given Complainant’s reputation Respondent was or should have been aware of the TEVA mark prior to registering the Domain Name. According to Complainant one of the websites to which the Domain Name automatically redirects attempts to fool visitors into downloading malware onto their computers which constitutes bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (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. The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark. Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for TEVA. The Domain Name The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its trademarks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant. Based on the undisputed submission and evidence provided by Complainant, the Domain Name redirects to various websites and at times to a website that requests the user to download information which has malware. The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In addition, the website under the Domain Name does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship between Respondent and Complainant as the holder of the TEVA trademarks, in particular as there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has it acquired any trademark or service mark rights. No Response to the Complaint was filed and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel notes that the Domain Name redirects to various websites and at times to a website that requests the user to download information which has malware. In the circumstances of this case, Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finally notes that it would seem that Respondent is a systematic cybersquatter with a practice to select domain names incorporating famous trademarks of third parties. As pointed out by Complainant in its undisputed amendment to the Complaint, Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico has been a respondent in a total of 161 UDRP proceedings. The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been 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 Domain Name Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan
Noting the status of the TEVA mark and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s TEVA mark.
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy