{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100885",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-11-20 11:57:14",
    "domain_names": [
        " saxendadietpills.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novo Nordisk A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Wallberg IP Advice",
    "respondent": [
        "zac  bassham"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "[1]\r\nThe Complainant is a global health care company, headquartered in Denmark and the owner of, amongst others, various trade mark registrations for “SAXENDA” in numerous countries. One of those registrations is the registered US trade mark no. 4541356, registered on 3 June 2014. The Complainant intends to use the term “SAXENDA” for medical preparations for the treatment of obesity. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n[3]\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered US trade mark no. 4541356 “SAXENDA”. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trade mark combined with the merely generic and descriptive term “diet pills”. The Complainant argues that for the purpose of an UDRP proceeding a distinctive term combined with a common noun or adjective is confusingly similar. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the presence of the .com top-level domain were irrelevant when comparing a domain name to a trade mark. \r\n\r\n[4]\r\nThe Complainant furthermore asserts that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name since the Complainant never licensed, consented or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use the term “Saxenda”. The Complainant also argues that it was not aware of prior use of the term “Saxenda” by the Respondent prior to the priority date of the trade mark in question. \r\n\r\n[5]\r\nThe Complainant is of the opinion that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complaint’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. \r\n\r\n[6]\r\nFinally, Complainant asserts that the Respondent had no right or legitimate interest in Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant relies on a press release dated 11 September 2014, which it issued and in which it is announced that the United States Federal Food and Drug Administration supported the approval of the Saxenda product for the treatment of obesity. The Complainant assumes that the Respondent had positive knowledge of this press release when he registered the Domain Name. The Complainant further points out that the Saxenda drug, once having received marketing authorization, will not be administered as a pill but by injection, a fact which is not mentioned in the press release of 11 September 2014 and that the fact that the Respondent combines the Complainant’s “Saxenda” mark with the term “diet pills” shows the Respondent’s bad faith. The Complainant furthermore sees the fact that the Respondent attempts to attract commercial gain from the content offered under the Domain as an indication of lack of legitimate interest as well as of bad faith. As ANNEX 4 to its Complaint the Complainant submits two screenshots of the website available under the Domain Name. On the first screenshot a sidebar is visible with the inscription “Diabetes? Visit our store”. The second screenshot is of the third level domain buy.saxendadietpills.com, showing the headline “You can Lose Weight Naturally with our Herbal Weight Loss Pills”.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n[7]\r\nIn his Response the Respondent contended that the Domain Name were used for a web blog about weight loss and obesity. No harm or malice were intended towards the Complainant. The Respondent furthermore argues that he uses the Domain Name as a generic term and had no intention of misusing it in any way. \r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Uli Foerstl, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-01-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Registered US trade mark no. 4541356 “SAXENDA” (word mark) registered on 3 June 2014.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SAXENDADIETPILLS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}