FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
Galderma SA is one of the world's leading dermatology companies, founded in 1981. In 2012, the Complainant reported sales of 1.6 billion euros. Over 4200 employees work for Galderma throughout the world, and its products are distributed in over 70 countries.
In 1947, Cetaphil® Cleansing Lotion was invented by a pharmacist as a safe and simple formula with which to mix dermatological remedies. By 1964, Cetaphil® Cleansing Lotion was recognized by dermatologists as a stand-alone skin care product that was gentle enough for all skin types or conditions. What started as a simple formulation recommended as an effective alternative to traditional soap cleansers is known today as Cetaphil® Gentle Skin Cleanser. Now, more than 60 years later, Cetaphil product offerings have grown substantially, and Galderma is leveraging advanced skin care technology to continue to bring customers new products to compliment those already known and loved. The cornerstone of the Cetaphil® brand is innovative technology anchored in time-tested truth. Cetaphil products are recommended by dermatologists more than any other brand. Indeed, Cetaphil is a famous and well-known trademark, as evidenced by the numerous awards and recognitions received over the years.
Complainant's Cetaphil mark is registered in numerous countries and territories throughout the world. The disputed domain cetaphyl.com was created on June 2005, which is subsequent to Complainant's first use and registration of the famous CETAPHIL mark, WIPO reg. No. 559326, issued on August 21,1990 for products included in class 3.
Cetaphyl.com is phonetically equivalent, and confusingly similar to the famous Cetaphil trademark because the distinction is in a single letter. The practice of typosquatting has been consistently regarded in previous UDRP decisions as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. The deliberate introduction of a typographical error or change, as is the case here, does not negate confusing similarity. The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the typo must be confusingly similar by design.
The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use its trademark. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name as evidenced by the Whois record, nor has the Respondent acquired any trademark rights in respect of the domain name.
There is also no legitimate interest in typosquatting.
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to host a commercial website that provides competing web portal links and general advertisement links to a variety of businesses and products, none of which is a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
The disputed domain is currently inactive and this inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. Not only is Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names not a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy, but it is consistent with the illustration of bad faith in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Respondent intended to disrupt the Complainant's business either by diverting confused users to the websites of third parties from which the Respondent may gain commercially, such as through collecting click-through-fees or by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s websites.
With respect to the current inactivity, Respondent’s failure to provide content with its disputed domain name evinces registration and use in bad faith. Furthermore, there is proof that the domain reverted to a site with commercial links for a period of time.
Given the well-known trademark at stake, which has a very high recognition on a worldwide basis, it is inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having in mind the Complainant's trademark. Given the Complainant's established rights in its mark and that Respondent registered a domain name "so obviously connected" with Complainant, Respondent's actions suggest "opportunistic bad faith" in violation of the Policy.
Respondent's typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, also evidence of bad faith.
|