{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101171", "time_of_filling": "2016-02-25 15:02:07", "domain_names": [ "generic-provigil.com" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Cephalon, Inc." ], "complainant_representative": "Matkowsky Law PC", "respondent": [ "SRC Domain Service" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nBACKGROUND\r\n\r\nThe Complainant Cephalon, Inc. (“Cephalon”), is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Formed in 1976, through its predecessors-in-interest, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., together with its subsidiaries (collectively, “Teva”), was first established in 1901 with its global headquarters in Israel. Operating in sixty countries worldwide, Teva (NYSE and TASE: TEVA) (www.tevapharm.com) is ranked among the top pharmaceutical companies in the world, and the world’s largest generic medicines producer. Teva’s net revenues in 2014 amounted to $20.3 billion.\r\n\r\nIn specialty medicines, Teva has a world-leading position in innovative treatments for disorders of the central nervous system, including pain, as well as a strong portfolio of respiratory products. \r\n\r\nCephalon’s PROVIGIL® (modafinil) Tablets [C-IV] are part of Teva’s CNS (Central Nervous System) line of specialty medicines. They contain modafinil, a Schedule IV federally controlled substances in the United States. Subject to important safety information, PROVIGIL® is indicated to improve wakefulness in adult patients with excessive sleepiness associated with narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea (but not as treatment for the underlying obstruction), or shift work disorder. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims the PROVIGIL® mark is well known within its specialty area.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends several CAC Panels have recognized Cephalon’s rights in its PROVIGIL\/NUVIGIL marks. CAC Case Nos. 100832-100835 (transferring, amongst others, , , , , , etc.); see also CAC Case No. 100892 (transferring , , , , among others).\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights for they are fully incorporated in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and, further, the Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims and provides evidence the Respondent is luring consumers in search of the well-known PROVIGIL brand to a documented rogue online pharmacy that promotes substitute products, including among others, MODALERT, arguably competitive to the PROVIGIL brand. Such use does not demonstrate a legitimate right or interest. \r\n\r\nBAD-FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe trademarks registration rights predate the domain name registration, and the allegations that the trademarks are well-known in their field have not been rebutted. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name, as obviously also follows from the way the domain name is currently being used. \r\n\r\nIn light of the use of the disputed domain name as evidenced by the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or to the web sites linked thereto, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of their web sites and of the products promoted therein. Therefore, the Complainant concludes the requirement of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to article 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complainant at all even it is obliged to do so.", "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. Vít Horáček" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-04-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has extensive trademark rights in Class 5 in its PROVIGIL® mark. For purposes of this proceeding, Complainant relies on rights in the United States and Europe and provides evidence in that regard (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2000231; OHIM CTM Reg. No. 003508843). ", "decision_domains": { "GENERIC-PROVIGIL.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }