Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106922

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

 The  Complainant  holds  numerous  trademarks  for  TEVA,  and  has  registrations  for  TEVA  PHARM and  TEVAPHARM,  covering  many  jurisdictions  around  the  world.

 The Complaint is based on the following Complainant's trademarks:

 - “TEVA”, Israel trademark registration No. 41075, registered on 05 July 1977, for goods in class 5;

 - “TEVA”, US trademark registration No. 1,567,918, registered on 28 November 1989, for goods and services in class 5;

 -  “TEVA”, European Union trademark registration No. 001192830, registered on 28 August 2000, for goods and services in class 5;

 - “TEVA”, semi-figurative international trademark registration No. 1319184, registered on 15 June 2016, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 42;

 - “TEVA”, semi-figurative European Union trademark registration No. 015135908, registered on 328 July 2016, for goods and services in classes 1,  3,  5,  9,  10, 16,  35,  42, 44;

 - “TEVA PHARM”, Israel trademark registration No. 164291, registered on 05 May 2004, for goods in class 5;

 - “TEVAPHARM”, European Union trademark registration No. 018285645, registered on 09 January 2021, for goods and services in classes 5 and 44.

 The Complainant provides evidences of his ownership.

 The  Complainant  and  its  affiliated  companies  hold  many  domain  names  which  encompass  the TEVA  mark,  tailored  for  different  jurisdictions  around  the  world.  For  example,  the  Complainant  uses <tevausa.com>  in  connection  with  its  United  States  site,  <tevauk.com>  for  the  United  Kingdom, and  <tevaitalia.it>  for  Italy. The  Complainant’s  uses the domain names <tevapharm.com>, <tevapharma.com> and <tevapharm.us>.

 The  Complainant  also  refers  to  the goodwill  and  recognition  that  it  has  attained  under  the  TEVA brand,  which  has  become  a  distinctive  identifier  of  its  offerings.

 The disputed domain name <tevaharm.live> was registered on September 16, 2024, by an individual, Mr. Richard Keen, using a privacy shield service.

 Multiple MX  records  were configured for the disputed domain name

The  Complainant,  established  in  1901,  is  an  internationally  active  and  widely  known pharmaceutical  company.  The  Complainant  maintains  a  portfolio  of  approximately  3,600 medicines,  reaching  some  200  million  people  across  58  markets  and  six  continents  every  day.  The Complainant  has  over  50  manufacturing  facilities  and  in  the  region  of  37,000  employees.  Further information  regarding  the  Complainant’s  offerings  and  history  can  be  found  on  its  main  international website,  <tevapharm.com>,  the  domain  of  which  was  registered  in  1996.  The  Complainant  is repeatedly  featured  in  lists  collating  the  world’s  top  generic  drug  manufacturers.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

 The  domain  name  is  identical  or  confusingly  similar  to  a  trademark  or  service  mark  in  which  the Complainant  has  rights.

 The disputed domain name comprises,  in  full,  each  of  the  Complainant’s TEVA,  TEVA  PHARM  and  TEVAPHARM  trademarks.  

 The  TEVA,  TEVA  PHARM  and  TEVAPHARM  trademarks  are  clearly  recognisable  in  the  disputed domain name, which is composed with the entire TEVAPHARM trademark.

 The  Panel  shall disregard  the ‘.live’  extension,  which forms  a  standard  registration  requirement  and  as  such  is  disregarded  under  the  first  element confusing  similarity  test.  The  Complainant  requests  that  the  Panel  finds  the  disputed domain name identical/confusing  similar  to  the  TEVA,  TEVA  PHARM  and  TEVAPHARM  trademarks  (hereinafter collectively  referred  to  as  ‘the  TEVA  Marks’)  in  which  the  Complainant  has  rights  for  the  purposes of  satisfying  paragraph  4(a)(i)  of  the  Policy.

 The  Respondent  has  no  rights  or  legitimate  interests  in  respect  of  the  domain  name

 To  the  Complainant’s  knowledge,  the  Respondent  does  not  have  trademark  rights  for,  nor  is  it commonly  known  by,  ‘tevapharm’  or  any  similar  term.  The  Respondent  is  not  connected  to  nor affiliated  with  the  Complainant  and  has  not  received  license  or  consent  to  use  the  TEVA  Marks  in any  way.  

 The  Complainant  further  submits  that  the  Respondent  has  not  used,  nor  prepared  to  use,  the disputed domain name  in  connection  with  a  bona  fide  offering  of  goods  or  services,  nor  a  legitimate  non- commercial  or  fair  use.  

 In  this  regard  the  Complainant  notes  that  the disputed domain name does  not resolve  to  an  active  site.  

 Panels  have  repeatedly  found  that  such  lack  of  use  is  not consistent  with  a  bona  fide  offering  within  the  meaning  of  paragraph  4(c)(i)  nor  a  legitimate  non- commercial  or  fair  use  within  the  meaning  of  paragraph  4(c)(iii)  of  the  Policy.  

 The Complainant relies on the WIPO  Case  No.  D2023-1279 Teva  Pharmaceutical  Industries  Ltd. v.  Solomon  sherif : "According  to the  Complainant’s  undisputed  allegations,  no  content  is  displayed  on  the  website  to  which  the disputed  domain  name  resolves.  Such  use  can  neither  be  considered  a  bona  fide  offering  of goods  or  services  nor  a  legitimate  noncommercial  or  fair  use  of  the  disputed  domain  name  in  the sense  of  paragraph  4(c)(i)  and  (iii)  of  the  Policy’"

 The  Complainant  further  submits  that  the disputed domain name carries a high  risk  of  implied  affiliation to the Complainant.  

 The  Complainant  has  presented  a  prima  facie  case  that  the  Respondent  lacks  rights  or  legitimate interests  in  the  disputed domain name  for  the  purposes  of  satisfying  paragraph  4(a)(ii)  of  the  Policy.

 The  domain  name  was  registered  and  is  being  used  in  bad  faith

 Under  the  Policy,  bad  faith  is  understood  to  occur  where  a  respondent  ‘takes  unfair  advantage  of  or otherwise  abuses  a  complainant’s  mark’  (see  WIPO  Overview  3.0,  section  3.1).  The  Complainant submits  that  the  Respondent  has  both  registered  and  is  using  the  disputed domain name  in  bad  faith,  in accordance with  paragraph  4(a)(iii).

Bad faith registration

The  Complainant  has  accrued  substantial  goodwill  and recognition  in  the  TEVA  brand,  which  was  first  registered  as  a  trademark  more  than  40  years  ago.

 The  Complainant’s  goods  and  services  reach  some  200  million  consumers  each  day  across  58 markets  and  six  continents.  

 The  Complainant  highlights  that  the  TEVA  Marks  are  clearly  identifiable  in  publicly  accessible trademark  databases.  Additionally,  the  top results  from  a  Google  search  of  ‘tevapharm’  exclusively  pertain  to  the  Complainant’s  offerings.  

 It  is  therefore  evident  that,  notwithstanding  other  considerations,  the  simplest  degree  of due  diligence  would  have  otherwise  made  any  prospective  registrant  of  the disputed domain name  aware  of the  Complainant’s  rights  in  the  globally  renowned  TEVA  Marks  and  brand.

 Given  the  disputed domain name’s  composition, and the  configuration of  multiple  MX  records  to  it,  it has  been  selected  by  the  Respondent  with  knowledge  of,  and  the  intention  to  capitalise on,  the  Complainant’s  TEVA  Marks.

Bad faith use

The  Complainant’s  TEVA  Marks  are  distinctive  within  its  industry  and  enjoy  a  worldwide  reputation.

 There  is  no  evidence  of  the  Respondent  having  made,  or  having  attempted  to  make,  any  good  faith, legitimate  non-commercial  or  fair  use  of  the  Domain  Name,  or  of  being  commonly  known  by  such.  It is  also  clear,  noting  the  disputed domain name’s  composition,  that  no  good  faith  use  could  be  made  of  it  by the  Respondent, i.e.,  no  use  which  would  not  unfairly  mislead  users  and  capitalise  on  confusion with  the  Complainant.

 A  finding  of  bad  faith  under  the  passive  holding  doctrine  has  been  made  in  multiple  previous domain  name  disputes  concerning  the  Complainant’s  TEVA  brand.  

 The  Complainant  lastly  submits  that  the  Respondent  has  configured  the  disputed domain name with multiple  MX  (mail  exchange)  records.

 It strongly  indicates  that  the  Respondent  may  use  the  disputed domain name to  engage  in  e-mail  phishing  activity.  

 Internet  users  receiving  e-mails  from  an  address  ending in  ‘@tevapharm.live’  are,  given  the  disputed domain name’s  high  similarity  to  the  Complainant’s  TEVA trademark and to the official www.tevapharm.com  website,  likely  to  form  the  false  impression  that  any  such  correspondence  has  been sent  by  the  Complainant, or by any duly authorized person.  

 There is  no  conceivable  good-faith  explanation  for  the  Respondent’s  decision to  attach  MX  records  to  the  disputed domain name.

 Panels  have  repeatedly  found  that  a  Respondent’s  activation  of  MX  records,  in  circumstances where  there  is  a  high  likelihood  of  internet-user  confusion,  is  indicative  of  the  respondent’s  intention to  engage  in  phishing/related  illegitimate  activities  and  constitutes  evidence  of  bad  faith.  

 In  view  of  the  foregoing,  the  Complainant  requests  that  the  Panel  makes  a  finding  of  bad  faith registration  and  use  under  paragraph  4(a)(iii)  of  the  Policy.

 No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

As set forth by Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, its use of, or 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, (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have 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 Panel relies on the produced pieces of evidence to find that these trademarks are well-known in the pharmaceutical field.  

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its trademarks.

The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not make a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. 

Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or allege any circumstance to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

There is no indication that the Respondent is known under the Disputed Domain Name.

In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the Disputed Domain Names, which the Respondent has not rebutted.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by an Administrative Panel to be evidence of the bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that:

“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a) (iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

The position of the Complainant on the market is well established.

The Respondent could not ignore the rights on the prior TEVA, TEVA PHARM and TEVAPHARM trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

The configuration of MX servers proves that the intent of the Respondent is to use the disputed domain name to send emails ...@tevapharm.live

The Complainant will have no control on the content and the purpose of such emails. It will expose the Complainant and the internet users to any type of fraudulent practice, like impersontaing the Complainant to abuse these internet users.

The Panel is of the opinion that this is bad faith use in the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy: "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

RIGHTS

The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s TEVA, TEVA PHARM trademarks and incorporates the entire TEVAPHARM trademark, without the addition of any other term.

The TEVAPHARM trademark  is distinctive and is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name <tevapharm.live>.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its trademarks.

The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not make a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. 

Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or allege any circumstance to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name .

 There is no indication that the Respondent is known under the disputed domain name .

 In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, which the Respondent has not rebutted.

BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE

The Panel is of the opinion that this is bad faith use in the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy: "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”