Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Israel, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Miraj Albert, India. 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 31, 2021. On June 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 3, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 June 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 29, 2021. The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on August 4, 2021. 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 Complainant was established in 1901 and is a leading global pharmaceutical company active in over 60 countries and employing approximately 45,000 people worldwide. It is the world’s largest generic medicines producer, as well as specialty medicines in innovative treatments for disorders of the central nervous system, including pain, including a strong portfolio of respiratory products. Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark TEVA (“Complainant’s Mark”) in numerous countries including the United States of America (“United States”) and Colombia. Complainant’s registered trade marks include the following: Mark Jurisdiction Registration No. Registration Date TEVA International Registration 1319184 June 15, 2016 TEVA United States 1567918 November 28, 1989 TEVA United States 2353386 May 30, 2000 TEVA United Kingdom UK00003173646 September 30, 2016 Complainant is also the registered owner of domain names containing the term “teva”, for example, Complainant operates its business under the website “www.tevapharm.com”. According to the publicly available WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on May 22, 2021. According to the evidence, the website related to the Domain Name was a copycat of Complainant’s official United Kingdom landing website “www.tevauk.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that it has rights in Complainant’s Mark and points out that the Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s Mark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “pharmaceutical” and the country identifier “uk”. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name as is not known by that name, nor is he using the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant claims that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent’s website is a copycat of Complainant’s official United Kingdom landing site at “www.tevauk.com”. Complainant submits that this demonstrates that Respondent was not only aware of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s Mark, but specifically targeted it in an attempt to deceive Internet users into believing that the website is owned or operated by Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established it has rights in Complainant’s Mark. Having operated for over a century and today operating in over 60 countries and employing over 45,000 people worldwide, Complainant has established a long-standing and substantial worldwide presence. Complainant produces both generic and novel medicines in a range of countries, including the United Kingdom. The Domain Name reproduces Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, along with the term “pharmaceutical” and the letters “uk”. The term “pharmaceutical” denotes the type of goods Complainant produces and sells and “uk” is a well-recognised geographical term, denoting the United Kingdom. The addition of “pharmaceutical” and the geographical term “uk” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. The Domain Name is identical to the trade mark TEVA registered by Complainant in multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark. Accordingly, the first ground under the Policy is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that the Domain Name resolves to a website that is a copycat of Complainant’s official United Kingdom landing site at “www.tevauk.com”. Complainant submits this demonstrates that Respondent has specifically targeted Complainant in an attempt to deceive Internet users into believing that the website is owned or operated by Complainant. On the face of it, the above conduct will create the impression that members of the public are accessing a genuine site, associated with Complainant, when that is not the case. Respondent has neither challenged nor refuted these allegations. The Panel draws the inference that Respondent is benefiting, either directly or indirectly, from wrongly associating himself with Complainant. This establishes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not authorized or permitted Respondent to register or use the Domain Name. Absent any response or explanation, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was not registered and has not been used for any legitimate or fair purpose. Accordingly, the second ground under the Policy is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant raises two points in support of its argument that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. First, as noted above, that Respondent has specifically targeted Complainant in an attempt to deceive Internet users. Secondly, Complainant submits that by operating a copycat of Complainant’s official United Kingdom landing site Respondent was aware of Complainant. Both points have merit. They suggest Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s Mark. This points towards bad faith registration. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of taking advantage of Complainant’s reputation in Complainant’s Mark to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for profit. This amounts to bad faith conduct under the Policy. The third ground of the Policy is thereby established. 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 Clive L. Elliott Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 20, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy