1. The disputed domain name includes the SPIRIVA trademarks in its entirety with the addition of only the generic term "dosing". According to standard case law under the UDRP an addition of a generic term to a trademark does not take away the similarity between a domain name and a trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the SPIRIVA trademarks.
2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent was not licenced or authorised to use the Complainant's trademarks in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel finds the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. The evidence was not challenged by the Respondent. The Panel therefore finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
3. In the absence of a Response, given that "SPIRIVA" is not a dictionary and/or commonly used term, and given that the Complainant demonstrated that Respondent registered other trademarks from Complainant as a domain name in a similar fashion, namely <jardiancedosing.com> and <pradaxadosing.com>, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's "SPIRIVA" trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, which was therefore registered in bad faith. Further, even though the disputed domain name is presently only passively held, it is a clear case of cybersquatting and the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith as it is inconceivable that the Respondent has any intention to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or any other bona fide use.
|