{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101421",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-01-24 10:04:08",
    "domain_names": [
        "teva4me.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc",
    "respondent": [
        "shlomo hadad"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Formed in 1976, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“the Complainant”), together with its subsidiaries (collectively, “Teva”), was first established in 1901 with its global headquarters in Israel. It began trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange in 1951, on NASDAQ in 1987, and on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TEVA) in 2012.\r\n\r\nTeva is a global pharmaceutical company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines. It operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant presence especially in the United States and Europe. Teva is the leading generic drug company in the U.S, and the leading generic pharmaceutical company in Europe. In Canada, Teva is one of the two leading generic pharmaceutical companies in terms of prescriptions and sales as of 2015, offering a broad portfolio of medicines, and the largest pharmaceutical company in Russia as of 2015. Teva is very active also in the Over the Counter (OTC) medicines business. \r\n\r\nShlomo Hadad (\"the Respondent\") is a physical person. He uses the Disputed domain name to offer OTC products for sale over the Internet in Israel.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name <teva4me.com> was registered on December 25, 2016. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings are known by the Panel.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Disputed domain name <teva4me.com> is confusingly similar to the \"TEVA\" famous mark since the Disputed domain name fully incorporates \"TEVA\" merely adding the wording \"4me\" and the generic top level domain identifier \".com\". Actually, 4me (with the meaning of \"for me\") is a merely descriptive phrase that suggests or implies one can acquire products identified by the trademark included in the Disputed domain name. According to the Complainant's view the Disputed domain name is highly similar to the \"TEVA\" trademark since the addition of merely generic or descriptive wording to a trademark in a domain name would be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name since the Complainant has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its TEVA mark and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed domain name. The Respondent uses the Disputed domain name to offer OTC products for sale over the Internet in Israel, specifically vitamins. In the Complainant's view, this activity should be considered dangerous for consumers. Actually, offering vitamins over the Internet in Israel through a Disputed domain name which includes the \"TEVA\" mark, which specifically covers vitamins in Israel, creates the false idea in the consumers that the vitamins are supervised by TEVA, and are therefore safe, when that may not be the case. In the Complainant's view the Respondent intents to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant's website to a website of the Respondent and for the Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of good and services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the Disputed domain name, as also follows from the disruptive way the Disputed domain name is being used to market third-party vitamins on the Internet. Actually, in the Complainant's view the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent did know about the Complainant and the \"TEVA\" mark and intended to register and use the Disputed domain in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Furthermore, the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trade mark in the Disputed  domain name used to point to and further, by that means, to promote the sale of third-party vitamins under a domain that incorporates the \"TEVA\" mark covering vitamins, is \"per se\" bad faith use.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. He actually filed the Response but the content of said answer is only: \"I will remove the domain name in one month\".",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed 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 Disputed 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 Disputed 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, being represented by RiskIQ, Inc in the U.S., filed its Complaint in relation to the Disputed domain name with the Czech Arbitration Court on January 19, 2017. \r\n\r\nThe CAC formally commenced proceedings on January 25, 2017 and notified the Respondent accordingly.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submitted his Response within the time frame required, following which the Complainant requested a temporary suspension of the proceedings to attempt to reach a settlement. The Czech Arbitration Court suspended the proceedings accordingly to Par. 11(a) of its UDRP Supplemental Rules. However, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's approach, and therefore the Czech Arbitration Court decided to resume the proceedings. \r\n\r\nAfter then, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed Guido Maffei, as the Panel in these UDRP proceedings on February 21, 2017. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Avv. Guido Maffei"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-02-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd owns different trademarks consisting of the word TEVA. In particular the Complainant has fully proved to be the owner of the following signs:\r\n\r\n- Israeli Trademark No. 188932 for TEVA registered on January 4, 2007, upon application made on March 27, 2006.\r\n- Israeli Trademark No. 41075 for TEVA registered on July 5, 1977, upon application made on August 5, 1975.\r\n- U.S. Trademark No. 1567918 for TEVA registered on November 28, 1989, upon application made on February 17, 1989.\r\n-  EUTM No. 1192830 for TEVA registered on July 18, 2000, upon application made on June 6, 1999.\r\n- Canadian Trademark No. TMA411063 for TEVA registered on April 16, 1993, upon application made on August 22, 1990.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "TEVA4ME.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}