{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101334",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-11-24 11:01:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "nuvigi.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Cephalon, Inc."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc.",
    "respondent": [
        "Lambrev   Aleksandr Svetoslavovich "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\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 (hereinafter collectively “Teva”), was first established in 1901 with its global headquarters in Israel. Operating in sixty countries worldwide, Teva (NYSE and TASE: TEVA) 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\nCephalon’s NUVIGIL® (armodafinil) Tablets [C-IV] are part of Teva’s CNS (Central Nervous System) line of specialty medicines. They contain armodafinil, a Schedule IV federally controlled substances in the United States. Subject to important safety information, NUVIGIL® 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 NUVIGIL® mark is well known within its specialty area, and the Complainant uses its mark in domain names (e.g. <http:\/\/nuvigil.com>). \r\n\r\nPROTECTED RIGHTS RELIED UPON\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it has extensive trademark rights in Class 5 in its NUVIGIL® mark, including in the United States, the European Union, and the Russian Federation and claims that registration of a mark with a trademark authority, regardless of the location of the parties, is sufficient evidence of having rights in a mark.\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims there is visual, aural and phonetic confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and trademark and that it may be presumed that by intentionally omitting the last letter of the trademark to cause confusion, the Respondent is actually causing such confusion. \r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and, further, Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed Respondent to use its trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to host a rogue Internet pharmacy referring to itself as \"Online Worldwide Drug Store\" and offers third-party pharmaceuticals for sale. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not offering Nuvigil® through Online Worldwide Drug Store. \r\n\r\nBAD-FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name, as also follows from the disruptive way the domain name is being used to market third-party pharmaceuticals on a rogue Internet pharmacy. The circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent did in fact actually know of Complainant and the NUVIGIL mark and intended to register and use the disputed domain in bad faith.\r\n\r\nAccording 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. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered both identical and confusingly similar domain names to other famous and well-known pharmaceutical trademarks to drive traffic to rogue Internet pharmacies, including the CIALIS mark owned by Eli Lilly, and XANAX and FELDENE marks owned by Pfizer (e.g., <fastshipcialisus.com>, <xaanex.com>, and <feldene.net>). \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant claims that the requirement of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name has been met. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided between the same parties and relating to the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "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.\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Russian.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Panel agrees with the Complainant, taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the undisputed allegations of the Complainant that the website corresponding to the domain name is entirely in English and so are some other web sites of the Respondent, and the fact that Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so and considering previous UDRP decisions (e.g. Instagram, LLC v. lu xixi, PRIVATE, WIPO Case No. D2015-1168 and Sanofi and AVENTISUB II Inc. v. Nikolay Fedotov, WIPO Case No. D2013-2121), and determines in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-01-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, inter alia, of the registered NUVIGIL trademarks in the following jurisdictions: \r\n- the US, trademark registration No. 3538564, filed on May 27th, 2004 and registered on November 25th, 2008;\r\n- the EU, trademark registration No. 004124831, filed on November 15th, 2004 and registered on January 26th, 2006; and\r\n- the Russian Federation, trademark registration No. 490281, filed on July 16th, 2012 and registered on June 24th, 2013.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NUVIGI.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}