The Complainants are Perrigo Italia S.R.L., Italy (the “First Complainant”) and Omega Pharma Innovation & Development NV, Belgium (the “Second Complainant”), both internally represented.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / kardelen varan, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 23, 2020. On July 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 24, 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 July 29, 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 amended Complaint on July 29, 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 July 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 3, 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 First and Second Complainants are associated companies registered in Italy and Belgium respectively. They are members of the Perrigo group of companies, which markets prescription-free pharmaceuticals and personal hygiene products. The First Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations: - Italy trademark number 1301390 for the mark GERMOZERO, registered on June 3, 2010 in International Classes 3 and 5; and - Italy trademark number 1301389 for the mark GERMO ZERO, also registered on June 3, 2010 in International Classes 3 and 5. On July 9, 2020, the Second Complainant submitted European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) applications for the marks GERMOZERO and GERMO ZERO. The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2020. The disputed domain name has been offered for sale on a website at “www.dan.com” at the price of USD 988. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name is identical to the First Complainant’s GERMOZERO and GERMO ZERO trademarks. The Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainants contend that they have never authorized the Respondent to use their GERMOZERO and GERMO ZERO marks, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by those names and that the Respondent is making no legitimate use of the disputed domain name, which it registered purely with the intention of selling to the Complainants. The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainants point to the fact that the disputed domain name was registered on the same day that the Second Complainant made its EUTM applications and contend it is obvious that the Respondent uses an algorithm to detect such EUTM applications and to register corresponding domain names. The Complainants say that, from as early as July 12, 2020, the disputed domain name was being offered for sale at a price of USD 988. They submit that this is slightly less than the cost of commencing proceedings under the UDRP and that the Respondent’s intention was obviously to make a quick profit out of the Complainants. The Complainants also question the Respondent’s registration details, contending that the Respondent’s name translates from Turkish as “snowdrops”, and the fact that the Respondent uses a privacy service. They also contend that the Respondent has targeted other of the Complainants’ trademark applications in a similar manner. The Complainants request the transfer of the disputed domain name to the First Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainants are required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is identical to the First Complainant’s registered trademark GERMOZERO. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainants’ submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the absence of any explanation or contradiction on the part of the Respondent, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 9, 2020 in response to the Second Complainant’s EUTM applications made on that date and with the intention of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainants’ for a price in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly associated with the registration (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy