{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104548", "time_of_filling": "2022-05-03 08:45:43", "domain_names": [ "buyvaldoxanonline.com", "coralanpharmacyonline.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BIOFARMA" ], "complainant_representative": "IP TWINS", "respondent": [ "Goran Gichevski" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is part of the Servier Group: the largest French pharmaceutical group on an independent level and the second largest pharmaceutical French group in the world. The group is active in 149 countries and employs more than 22,000 people throughout the world. 100 million patients are treated daily with Servier medicinal products and generics.\r\n\r\nVALDOXAN is a medicine developed by the Servier Group. It uses Agomelatine as its active substance, which belongs to the category of the antidepressants. Agomelatine has been authorized by the European Medicine Agency since 2009.\r\n\r\nCORALAN is a medicine used to treat chronic cardiac insufficiency as well as chronic, stable angina. It uses Ivabradine as its active substance, which is authorized by the European Medicine Agency since 2005.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were both registered on 9 February 2022 and are inactive.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain names and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.", "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 names. ", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. Both domains contain either the “valdoxan” or “coralan” trademark of the Complainant in their entirety, associated to either “buy” and “online” or “pharmacy” and “online”. The “valdoxan” and “coralan” trademarks are composed of arbitrary, fanciful terms. Their combination with the above-mentioned generic terms does not allow the disputed domain names to avoid the risk of confusion with said trademarks. On the contrary, in both cases internet users will be led to believe that the disputed domain names would allow them to purchase the Complainant’s medicine online. It is common case law within UDRP proceedings that the addition of TLDs such as \".com” are not significant in determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. The Complainant thus contends that the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP is satisfied.\r\n\r\nIn view of the Complainant, the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Firstly, according to the Complainant’s verifications, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, which redirects towards error pages. The Complainant’s queries performed on Google search engine on “valdoxan” and “coralan” only brought up results concerning the Complainant’s medicine on the first pages. The Complainant performed verifications on WIPO’s global brand database: all the trademarks detected were in the name of the Complainant. Further to the Registrar Verification, the Complainant performed additional searches in the name of the Respondent which show no trademark in the name of the Respondent. Secondly, the Complainant verifications did not allow to find any clue of preparation to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain names are currently not actively used on the web. Thirdly, the Respondent has never been granted authorization, license or any right whatsoever to use the trademarks of the Complainant. The Respondent is not commercially linked to the Complainant. Fourthly, since the adoption and extensive use by the Complainant of the trademarks VALDOXAN and CORALAN predate the registration of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, the burden is on the Respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests it may have or have had in the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant strongly believes that none of the circumstances which set out how a respondent can prove his rights or legitimate interests are present in this case. In light of the above developments, given that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain names, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent, who should come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Therefore, the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant then contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, for the following reasons. Firstly, the Complainant states that the Servier Group is so widely well-known that it is very unlikely that the Respondent ignored the rights of the Complainant on the trademarks VALDOXAN and CORALAN. Secondly, VALDOXAN and CORALAN are fanciful, arbitrary terms, devoid of any meaning in any dictionary, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not registered the disputed domain names due to a dictionary meaning, a supposed value as generic terms. Moreover, due to the fancifulness of “valdoxan” and “coralan”, their complexity (being 7 and 8-characters strings), and the reputation of the Servier Group, the Complainant contends that there is no way the registrations of the disputed domain names are a mere coincidence. This is especially true since the same Respondent holds two domain names each containing a different Trademark from the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registrations targeting the Complainant’s trademarks. Thirdly, the Respondent used a WHOIS privacy service for the registration of domain names containing highly distinctive, intensively used trademarks, combined with terms suggesting online sale of medicines. In light of the above developments, the Complainant considers any good-faith use inconceivable and contends that the disputed domain names are used in bad faith according to the doctrine of “passive holding”. The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain names were registered, has been and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent. ", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [ "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- European Trademark registration VALDOXAN No. 002432904, dated 31 October 2001, covering products in international class 5;\r\n\r\n- International Trademark Registration VALDOXAN No. 783177, dated 26 April 2002, covering products in international class 5, notably designating China, USA and Russia;\r\n\r\n- International Trademark Registration CORALAN No. 679923, dated 19 September 1997, covering products in international class 5, notably designating China and Russia; and\r\n\r\n- U.S. Trademark Registration CORALAN No. 86265697, dated 31 March 2015 and covering products in international class 5.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further alleged that it is the registrant of the domain name , registered on 9 November 2001, and the domain name , registered on 26 July 1999, as well as other domain names containing its trademarks VALDOXAN and CORALAN.", "decision_domains": { "BUYVALDOXANONLINE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CORALANPHARMACYONLINE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }