The Complainant is STADA Arzneimittel AG, Germany, represented by Osborne Clarke, Germany.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Namecock Cheapli, Greece. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2021. On June 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 the Complainant on June 29, 2021, 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 July 2, 2021. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 9, 2021. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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 The Complainant was founded in 1895 in Germany. It is now a leading provider of high-quality pharmaceutical and non-prescription healthcare products in around 120 countries, including markets in the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa. It has used the mark STADA in connection with the provision of its products for more than 125 years. As at December 2020, the Complainant employed over 12,300 people worldwide. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous trademarks worldwide comprising STADA, including European Union trademark number 569194 STADA registered on April 16, 1999, and United States trademark number 5256442 STADA registered on August 1, 2017. The Complainant has operated a website at “www.stada.com” promoting and marketing its products since 1999. The Domain Name was registered on April 15, 2021. It resolves to an index page with links that simply generate a “404 Not Found” Error. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its STADA trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has uncontested rights in its STADA trademark, both by virtue of its many trademark registrations and as a result of its widespread use of the mark over more than 125 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.cam”, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s STADA trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is not being used for an active website but merely resolves to an index page with inoperable links. The Domain Name is not a dictionary term but is distinctive. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint, to explain its registration or use of the Domain Name, or to take any other steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature and notoriety of the Domain Name, the Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the STADA mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, and that it did so with the intention of using the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that it was registered by or associated with the Complainant, particularly those users mistyping “.cam” instead of “.com”. Although the Respondent has made no active use of the Domain Name, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) points out at section 3.3 that, from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have consistently found that non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Factors that panelists take into account, whilst looking at all the circumstances, include “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. The Complainant’s STADA mark is distinctive and has been used by the Complainant for over 125 years; there has been no response to the Complaint; the Respondent registered the Domain Name using the privacy service Withheld for Privacy ehf, its contact details clearly being false since its address is stated to be a non-existent city in the State of New York in Greece; and in the Panel’s view there is no good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was 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 Domain Name Ian Lowe
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: September 1, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy