1. The Domain name is identical to the DULCOLAX trademarks of the Complainant.
The disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz> is identical to the DULCOLAX trademarks of the Complainant. Indeed, the domain name includes in its entirety the trademark without any adjunction of letter or word.
The new gTLD extension “.XYZ” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the DULCOLAX trademarks of the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the Complainant established that the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz> is identical to his prior DULCOLAX trademarks.
2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name(s)
According to WIPO D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.
The information regarding the Respondent, provided by the Whois of the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz>, is "SKYRXSHOP". A Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as "DULCOLAX".
The Complainant sufficiently establishes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <dulcolax.xyz> and is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Neither a licence nor an authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks DULCOLAX, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
On the contrary, the Respondent “SKYRXSHOP” describes itself as “Your reliable supplier of generic medications.” on its website http://www.skyrxshop.com/ into which redirects the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz>.
Thus, the Respondent knows the pharmaceutical sector very well and could therefore not ignore the Complainant's trademark DULCOLAX.
The Respondent was necessarily informed of this trademark when it registered the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz>.
The disputed domain name redirects to a page from the website http://www.skyrxshop.com/ On this page, the Respondent sells drugs under the title "Generic Dulcolax (Bisacodyl)". According to the description, the Respondent sells a generic drug (Bisacodyl) from the drug "Dulcolax".
The Respondent’s website also offers for sale many other pharmaceutical products, and so is attracting Internet users through the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, who are then offered a wide range of unrelated products.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Respondent was seeking to use the domain name only to divert the consumers to his website and that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz>.
3. The domain name(s) has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant successfully asserts that the Respondent was necessarily aware of the trademark DULCOLAX® when it registered the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz>.
This is confirmed by the content of the website into which the disputed domain name redirects. Indeed, the website in relation with the disputed domain name <dulcolax.xyz> sells drugs under the title "Generic Dulcolax".
The Respondent is in the business of the sale of pharmaceuticals, and no doubt knew of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and deliberately sought to use their goodwill to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s product.
The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in order to deceive Internet users seeking the Complainant’s product, so as to generate revenue from selling unrelated or competing pharmaceuticals. This constitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the Policy.
There is also evidence of bad faith use, in that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct Internet traffic to a for-profit on-line pharmacy that sells pharmaceuticals that directly compete with Complainant.
Accordingly, the Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
|