Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In this context, the Panel also notes that the burden of proof is on the Complainant to make out its case and past UDRP panels have consistently said that a Complainant must show that all three elements of the Policy have been made out before any order can be made to transfer a domain name.
For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
B. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Policy simply requires the complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants are the owner of registration of “WEHEALTH” and “WEHEALTH BY SERVIER” trademarks.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name contains the Complainants’ trademark “WEHEALTH” as a whole.
Moreover, the addition of the gTLD “.pro” is not enough to abolish the similarity.
The Panel is of the opinion that the Internet users will easily fall into false impression that the disputed domain name is an official domain name of the Complainants. The Panel recognizes the Complainants' rights and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainants' trademarks. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is provided.
B. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant has the burden of establishing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
It is open to a respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use or making demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent of the dispute (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent of the dispute is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without an intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Thus, if the respondent proves any of these elements or indeed anything else that shows that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the complainant will have failed to discharge its burden of proof and the complaint will fail. The burden is on the complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once the complainant has made out a prima facie case, then the respondent may, inter alia, by showing one of the above circumstances, demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainants contend that the Respondent has nothing to do with the Complainants and any use of the trademark “WEHEALTH” has to be authorized by the Complainants and there is no such authorization. Moreover, the disputed domain name has no relation with the Respondent and the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name.
In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts the Complainants' allegations as true that the Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainants’ trademarks in the disputed domain name. Hence, as the Complainants have made out their prima facie case, and as the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests as illustrated under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor has the Panel found any other basis for finding any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain dame, the Panel concludes that the Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. BAD FAITH
The Panel concludes that the Complainants' WEHEALTH and WEHEALT BY SERVIER trademarks have a significant reputation and are of distinctive character. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that due to the earlier rights of the Complainants in the WEHEALTH and WEHEALT BY SERVIER trademarks and the associated domain name, the Respondent, was aware of the Complainants and their trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see e.g., Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107). Referring to Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226, the Panel believes that the awareness of the Complainants’ trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name is to be considered an inference of bad faith registration.
Moreover, the link < wehealth.pro> is currently inactive.
Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned circumstances in the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainants have established the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|