Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove that each of the following elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1) The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it is the owner of rights in the trademark "TEVA" and that said mark is known as the Complainant's mark worldwide. Of high relevance is the circumstance that there is a consistent number of domain names including "TEVA" which were held by previous panels to be confusingly similar to the "TEVA" trademark of the Complainant (see Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v Teva Pharm, CAC Case No.101326 <tevapharmscareers.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Domain Protection LLC, CAC Case No 101330 <tevadrug.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v Cameron Jackson, CAC Case No 101311 <tevapharmaceuticals.xyz>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v Amy Kinjo, CAC Case No 101161 <tevapharmaceuticalslimited.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. zhaoke, CAC Case No. 101134 <tevaus.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v dh, CAC Case No. 101041 <tevacares.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICE, INC., CAC Case No. 100921 <us-teva.com>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Apex Domain Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. DAU2014-0001 <tevapharm.com.au>; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Protected Domain Services / Dworld c/o Basil Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2010-0532 <myteva.com>).
The Panel also finds that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since adding a generic wording to a domain name, such as “4me” (with the meaning of for me), is not sufficient to escape the finding of similarity and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant. In this case the wording "4me" does not serve any distinguishing function but rather describes the nature of the services offered on the relevant website (see Sanofi Aventis v. Health Care Marketing Company, WIPO Case No. D2007-0475 <ambienforyou.com> and Sanofi Aventis v. Home, WIPO Case No. D2005-1040 <ambien-for-you.com>).The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.
2) Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out in particular but without limitation three circumstances which, if proved by the Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii), namely:
(i) before any notice of the dispute to the Respondent, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights;
or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name <teva4me.com>, years after the use and registration of the "TEVA" mark by the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent appears to have attempted to benefit commercially from the appropriation of the "TEVA" mark in the Disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed domain name to attract Internet users to his website offering for sale the same typology of products distributed by the Complainant, cannot be considered a bona fide use of a domain name (see Sanofi-aventis, Aventis Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. v. Babak Azizzadeh, WIPO Case No. D2007-1727 <sculptraexpert.net> and Sanofi-aventis v. Montanya Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-1079 <sanofiaventissalesjewlery.com>). In addition, the Complainant provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name as it is not commonly known under the Disputed domain name and as the Respondent was never authorized or licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the Disputed domain name. On the other hand, the Respondent, in the absence of any substantial response, has not shown any fact or element to justify legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied also paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
3) Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or (ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;
or (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product.
The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the Disputed domain name. Indeed, the use of the famous mark "TEVA", which is well known worldwide in the pharmaceutical sector, for selling OTC medical products, clearly indicates that Disputed domain name was chosen to take advantage of the Complainant’s mark reputation. This finding leads to the obvious conclusion that the Disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Complainant has proved that the Respondent uses the Disputed domain name to divert Internet visitors, who presumably were attempting to visit the Complainant’s website, to a different websites offering products pertaining to the same business carried out by the Complainant. This behaviour, considering the high similarity of the Disputed domain name with the "TEVA" mark demonstrates a project to disrupt and take advantage from the Complainant’s business by the diversion of visitors to the Complainant’s website to a website showing products pertaining to the same business sector. The opportunistic bad faith resulting from the absence of any right of the Respondent in the Trademark or the Disputed domain name, the absence of any authorization or license from the Complainant to register the Disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith by the Respondent in adopting and using the Disputed domain name (see Express Scripts, Inc. v Bella Gia, WIPO Case no. D2006-0310 <express-scripts.com>). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied also paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|