The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Ruphina Muma, Mumabensonfoundation, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2020. On May 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 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 June 11, 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 June 15, 2020. 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 June 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 5, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2020. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 one of the leading pharmaceutical companies having global operations in more than 100 countries. The Complainant owns numerous VALIUM trademark registrations throughout the world, including International Registration No. 250784 registered on December 20, 1961. The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2020 and directs to inactive website at the time of the Decision. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website directing Internet users to an online pharmacy purportedly selling pharmaceuticals. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the third party’s trademark XANAX and hyphen does not significantly distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. No license, permission, authorization was granted by the Complainant to use its trademark in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used for commercial gain and with the purpose of capitalizing on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent failed to address the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and to present any case of right or legitimate interest it might have. The disputed domain name alludes to the Complainant. There is no reason why the Respondent should have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark. According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. According to section 1.12 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , where the complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other third-party marks (i.e., Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent., thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong,WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). The disputed domain name incorporates the VALIUM trademark of the Complainant in its entirety and it is its recognizable element. Since VALIUM is a well-known trademark, and the disputed domain name is associated with the website purportedly offering medical products including those of the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the VALIUM trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that it chose to target the VALIUM trademark because of the likelihood that it will attract traffic to the Respondent’s website. In the Panel’s view, such conduct cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrei Novakovich,WIPO Case No. D2016-1513). The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Daniele Tornatore,WIPO Case No. D2016-1302). Further, based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests. Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew, or at least should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s priory registered and known trademark, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). According to section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. To facilitate assessment of whether this has occurred, and bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests with the complainant, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that any one of the following non-exclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. In this regard, the Panel finds that the fourth of the above scenarios apply to the present case confirming the Respondent’s bad faith. At the time of the Decision the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. However, the Panel finds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in this case. Moreover, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, and did not provide any good reason to justify this, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin v. Vaclav Novotny,WIPO Case No. D2009-1022). Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: July 24, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy