PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TYKERB trademark, as it wholly incorporates this trademark. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the mere addition of the descriptive term “lapatinib” does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the trademark TYKERB of the Complainant; on the contrary, it makes it stronger. As to the gTLD “.com”, the Complainant implicitly suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name and the Complainant has no business with the Respondent. Further, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
According to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the TYKERB trademark, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Further, it would be inconceivable that the unique combination of the Complainant’s trademark together with the the descriptive term “lapatinib” is not deliberate.
With respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as an inactive website, a fact that -in combination with the incorporation of a famous trademark in a domain name- proves use in bad faith. Further, the Respondent did not respond to a cease and desist letter addressed to him by the Complainant. Finally, the Respondent is, according to the Complainant, acting in a certain pattern of conduct.
For all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
RESPONDENT
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|