{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101462",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-03-02 10:03:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "LADOVIQ.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Privacy Protection Service INC d\/b\/a PrivacyProtect.org a\/k\/a Yao Zuodong, Yao Zuodong"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant states that it is a leading global pharmaceutical company that is committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare for people across the globe by developing, producing and marketing affordable ge-neric drugs as well as innovative and specialty pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients. \r\nOn August 30, 2016, the Complainant filed a trademark application in the United States (“USPTO”) for the word LADOVIQ in Class 5.\r\nThe next day, on August 31, 2016, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lavodiq.com>.\r\nOn August 31, 2016, the Complainant also filed a trademark application at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) for the same word and Class. \r\nOn April 3, 2017, the Respondent initiated settlement discussions by suggesting it would accept being reimbursed for the purchase of the disputed domain name. When the Complainant's counsel asked for a receipt, Respondent demanded $1,162 for \"lawyer’s informal advice and translations”. It then refused to back up with any supporting documentation: “We have no invoice, please understand that only formal advice has an invoice but very expensive”.\r\nThe Complainant originally brought this Complaint regarding two disputed domain names, but deleted one of them in the Amended Complaint without prejudice.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nOn Tuesday, August 30, 2016, the Complainant filed a trademark application for the word mark LADOVIQ at the USPTO (Reg. n° 87155180) covering Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus Nephritis and Crohn's Disease, in Class 5.\r\nOn Wednesday, August 31, 2016, the next day Teva submitted its U.S. trademark application, and on the same day it filed for the same trademark at the EUIPO (Reg. n° 015790496), the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the entirety of the mark, and adding the \".com\" gTLD suffix.\r\nTeva did not authorize, contract, license or otherwise permit the Respondent to register or use the LADOVIQ mark. The Respondent is not a vendor, supplier, or distributor for Teva, has no trademark rights in the corresponding disputed domain name, and is not commonly known by the mark, or by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain prior to notice of this proceeding.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name <lavodiq.com> contains the entirety of Teva’s LADOVIQ mark, which does not have a dictionary meaning. The implication arising in the mind of the Internet user is that the Respondent is either, or in some way associated with, Teva. The disputed domain name does not resolve (“unable to connect”), which is akin to passive holding. This also constitutes bad faith registration and use.\r\nAdditionally, bad faith may be inferred from the timing of when the domain name was registered in relation to the newly filed application for LADOVIQ trademark by Teva in the U.S. Respondent lifted the mark filed by Teva and incorporated it in the disputed domain name only a day after the filing. This is hardly a coincidence. The timing of the registration in relation to the U.S. filing by Teva is persuasive evidence of the Respondent's bad-faith intent in registering the disputed domain name to profit from its trademark significance specifically to the Complainant (e.g. Teva Pharma-ceutical Industries Ltd. v. Fing Wa a\/k\/a xang ming a\/k\/a Zhao Zing a\/k\/a Zhangh Yuu, Case n°101431 (WIPO, April 11, 2017). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is inconceivable that the Respondent did not have Teva's marks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and the actions suggest opportunistic bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also notes that the Respondent initiated a settlement discussion that turned out to be a disguised demand for $1,162 in alleged fees that the Respondent refused to back up with any supporting documentation: “We have no invoice, please understand that only formal advice has an invoice but very expensive” (see email exchanges annexed to the Complaint filed by the Complainant). This is clearly evidence supporting that the purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to profit by trying to extract a fee from the Complainant based on the trademark significance of the domain to the Complainant, and having intentionally prevented it from being able to register its mark in a corresponding domain name without paying ransom fees.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent's bad faith registration is exemplified by masking false contact information used to register the disputed domain name behind proxy services. For instance, the phone number and address belong to a shopping mall called \"The Gate\". The Respondent does not have an organ-ization using his first and last name as indicated in the Whois output behind the proxy registration. \r\n\r\nIn summary, Teva has shown that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which it has established rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith opportunistically, passively held, specifically to exploit the trademark significance of the mark in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submitted a very brief statement and made the following submissions.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 31, 2016. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that “the doname (sic.) name Privacy \/ Proxy Registration Service and The Privacy \/ Proxy Registration Service does not violate ICANN's policies”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent notes that the Whois contact is “true and effective”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent argues that LADOVIQ is just a pending trademark application and is not used in commerce. Thus, the common-law rights logically cannot precede a mark's use in commerce. See, e.g. Sony Pictures Television Inc. v. Thomas, Jeff, Case n° 1625643 (Aug. 6, 2015); MCorelab Inc. v. Melissa Domain Name Services \/ Shanshan Huang, Case n°1652968 (Jan. 18, 2016).  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent alleges that he has not “engaged” in bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent explains that he made “(…) a statement that The complainant falsified evidence and framed us. The Disputed domain name from registration to now never used for parking. We have never used the disputed do-main name for hosting websites. The Dispute domain name dns never changes,It is the same as it is now”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent argues that it has a legitimate right and\/or interest on the disputed domain name and  that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in good faith. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent finally asks the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, pursuant to paragraph 15(e) of the Rules. The Respondent does not justify this finding. \r\n",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Etienne Wéry"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-05-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant (“Teva”) is the owner of the LADOVIQ trademark in sever-al jurisdictions as follows :\r\n•\tLADOVIQ, U.S. trademark n° 87155180, Class 5, filed on August 30, 2016 (registered);\r\n•\tLADOVIQ, EU trademark n° 015790496, Class 5, filed on August 31, 2016 (registered);\r\nDetails and official printouts of which are set out in and annexed to the Complaint filed by the Complainant.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LADOVIQ.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}