FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
1. The Complainant is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. a pharmaceutical company and the world’s largest generic medicines producer headquartered in Israel. According to the Complainant's undisputed allegations, Teva's net revenues in 2015 amounted to $19.7 billion.
2. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. In fact it incorporates the entirety of the registered ACTAVIS trademark and only adds the generic verb "buy" and the ".com" gTLD suffix. The verb "buy" is likely to reinforce the impression of a connection between the Complainant and the relevant website since it suggests a website where the user can buy the products identified by the mark, i.e. the Complainant's products, which is not in fact the case.
3. According to the Complainant's further undisputed allegations. the Respondent is neither known by the name "BuyActavis" nor is there any indication that Respondent has any trade mark rights or previously used the term "Actavis" in any legitimate manner. Moreover, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it. The Respondent was not authorized to use the distinctive trade mark ACTAVIS for any purpose by the Complainant. It is clear from the Whois record that Respondent used false contact information to register the domain. For instance, the phone number of record for Respondent consists of the sequential numbers "+1.234567."
In addition, Respondent also set up an email account on the disputed domain to send or receive emails from an account "____@buyactavis.com." Any email sent from or to an email address "@buyactavis.com" is likely to cause confusion as Internet users will associate such an account as originating from or being sent to the Complainant or its authorized licensees.
Furthermore, the disputed domain is currently parked with GoDaddy and displaying commercial ads for GoDaddy's business, which in and of itself does not confer rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
4. A clear presumption of the registration of the disputed domain name being in bad faith lies in the fact that the Respondent used fictitious and false data when registering the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name (i.e. on 10 August 2016) within less than week from a press announcement (i.e. 2 August 2016) that Teva had acquired the Actavis Generics business, so it is likely that Respondent was aware of the trademark significance of the ACTAVIS mark when he registered it. In fact, a search in the United States on Google from prior to when the domain was registered disclosed numerous articles on Actavis ranging from Wikipedia to the Wall Street Journal, from Reuters to Yahoo, from Forbes to Fortune to the Financial Times. According to Forbes Global 2000 list of the world's largest companies, Complainant was listed in 2015 as No. 615.
As other UDRP panels have held, a respondent cannot escape a finding of use in bad faith by parking a disputed domain name if the surrounding circumstances indicate that the domain name comprises another's famous trademark without plausible excuse. This reasoning applies here, where it is clear that Complainant’s trademark is well-known, received considerably coverage leading up to when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and the Respondent used false data when registering the disputed domain name.
|