The Complainant is Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.
The Respondent is Sergey Kuraev, Kazakhstan. 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 29, 2020. On July 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 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 August 14, 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 August 25, 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 August 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 17, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 18, 2020. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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 member of the Bayer AG group of companies (“Bayer”). Bayer is a major international enterprise providing health care, nutrition, and plant protection services and products on five continents. The Bayer Pharmaceutical division operates in more than 100 countries offering numerous well-known such branded products. The Complainant is the owner for the past two decades of trademark registrations for the mark CIPRO (“the Mark”) in Canada, Brazil, Israel, and the United States for the antibacterial drug ciprofloxacin. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 27, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark because the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Mark in combination with the abbreviation “rx” commonly understood to mean “prescription”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because the Respondent has never been known by the Mark and there is no evidence of any bona fide business by the Respondent using the Mark or the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name redirects to the online pharmacy the “Happy Family Store” at which purports to offer for sale the various pharmaceutical products including, but not limited to, CIPRO branded pharmaceuticals. Finally, the Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith to attract unsuspecting internet consumers to the Respondent’s commercial website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed by adding the common abbreviation for the word “prescription” to the Complainant’s Mark. The utilization of a common dictionary abbreviation, such as “rx”, as a suffix attached to a registered trademark, will not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Mihail S Lebedev,WIPO Case No. D2017-1369 (transferring Moreover, the wholesale incorporation of the Complainant’s Mark into the disputed domain name is sufficient in this case to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. Yellow Corporation v. MIC,WIPO Case No. D2003-0748; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. John Taxiarchos,WIPO Case No. D2006‑0561; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin,WIPO Case No. D2003-0888. “While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain was registered using a privacy shield to conceal the Respondent’s identity. The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Fred,WIPO Case No. D2006-0246; see also WIPO Overview 2.1. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The registration of the disputed domain name itself demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Mark and that the Complainant registered the disputed domain name in bad faith using the Complainant’s Mark to attract internet customers to the Respondent’s website. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s well-known Mark and willy-nilly composed the disputed domain name by adding an abbreviation to the well-known Mark when there is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name before its registration. The registration of the disputed domain name was designed to confuse Internet consumers. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Rose Irinco Mercado,WIPO Case No. D2020-0913 (transferring An elementary Internet search would have disclosed the Complainant’s Mark. The Mark is sufficiently distinctive and well-known such that it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Complainant has met its burden 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 William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy