{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101134", "time_of_filling": "2015-12-08 12:09:07", "domain_names": [ "tevaus.com" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd." ], "complainant_representative": "Matkowsky Law PC", "respondent": [ "zhaoke" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (\"Complainant\" or \"Teva\"), a top 10 pharmaceutical company worldwide, first established in 1901 with its global headquarters in Israel and currently active in 60 countries. In 2014 the Teva group generated USD 20.3 billion in net revenues and is traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and the New York Stock Exchange. The Teva group has a leading position in innovative treatments for disorders of the central nervous system, including pain, as well as a strong portfolio of respiratory products. Concerning the market share, in the United States, for example, one of every seven generic prescriptions is filled with a Teva product, and Teva's presence in the EU market is considerable. \r\n\r\nTeva is the registered holder of numerous word and figurative \"teva\" trademarks in many jurisdictions (for more information see section Identification of Rights) as well as it operates worldwide under the company name including the distinctive \"teva\" word element.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 23 November 2015 and is held by the Respondent. The Respondent, zhaoke, is based in China and no details on the Respondent were provided nor found on the internet. \r\nA website available under the disputed domain has contained content related to pharmaceutical industry. In particular, it has been used to present links to lists of various websites, some relating to the pharmaceutical industry, including for example links to \"Teva Pharmaceutical Jobs\" website. In addition, a website available under the disputed domain name includes a note that the domain is for sale.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name from the Respondent.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name. ", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nLANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Panel is allowed to apply paragraph 11(a) of the Rules For Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"Rules\") which confers authority to the Panel to conduct the proceeding in a language other than of the Registration Agreement, including the language of the Complaint. The circumstances for such decision include:\r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain name consists of English-based characters;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent's email account used to register the disputed domain name comprises of English words; \r\n\r\n-\tDepending on IP address of the internet user visiting the disputed domain name website, the website displays advertising in English; \r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent entered into an English contract with a parking monetization supplier, Rook Media (DomainSponsor), a Swiss corporation with its office in New York, to display the English-based ads; \r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent's email used with the domain name registrar has been used for the registration of several other domain names, including for example , which uses English generic or descriptive terms.\r\nFrom the above the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is familiar with English language, as well as it targets English-speaking audience, and finds it to be in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties to allow the case to proceed in English. \r\n\r\nDOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL AND CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE PROTECTED MARK\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the \"teva\" registered trademarks in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name includes \"teva\" with the addition of the geographically descriptive abbreviation (country code) \"us\" reserved for the United States. The Complainant refers to previous decisions in domain disputes, especially those with the pattern , and quotes that the addition of descriptive wording to a trademark in a domain name is itself insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The incorporated trademark \"teva\" constitutes the dominant or principal component of the disputed domain name. The \".com\" top-level suffix in the domain name is disregarded under the confusing similarity test as it is a technical requirement of registration. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that panels in past disputes recognized that use of a domain name for purposes of parking and landing pages or PPC links itself does not establish rights or legitimate interests arising from a \"bona fide offering of goods or services\" or from \"legitimate non-commercial or fair use\" of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder, which is the opposite of fair use, constituting illegitimate activities. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent uses the disputed domain name to earn parking revenue that specifically capitalizes on the trademark value, which is unfair use resulting in misleading diversion;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent put the domain on DomainSponsor domain parking platform and presents commercial ads related to the pharmaceutical industry there; the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name for domain revenue, specifically when it is linked to the \"teva\" trademark; \r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent is responsible for the hosted content despite the fact that it hired DomainSponsor to handle the hosted content.\r\n\r\nDOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the following circumstances strongly indicate that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent incorporated the registered trademark \"teva\" in the disputed domain;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host multiple commercial links to goods and services, some of which are strongly related to the Complainant's trademark;\r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain name has attracted viewers for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as a result of pay-per-click links;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent presumably uses false contact information including multiple identities and physical addresses to register infringing domain names with his email account;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has pattern and practice of registering domain names including prominent third-party trademarks, such as , or , using the domains for parking revenue;\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has not taken active steps to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, however, the domain is advertised for sale. \r\n\r\nIn support of its arguments, the Complainant refers to previous domain disputes before the Czech Arbitration Court, WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) which recognized Complainant's rights in the TEVA registered mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n1)\tExcerpt on the disputed domain name details from WHOIS database;\r\n2)\tExcerpts on other domain names from whois database registered by the Respondent; \r\n3)\tExcerpts from OHIM and other databases such as US Patent and Trademark Office regarding Complainant's trademarks; \r\n4)\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website; \r\n5)\tVarious documents to support additional arguments, including, for example, the decision of the National Arbitration Forum regarding disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.", "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n", "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n", "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n", "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\nPursuant to paragraph 11 (a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, “the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. In this case according to the Registrar the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. However, the Complainant requested to change the language of the proceedings to English based on the reasons mentioned above. \r\n\r\nThe Provider sent the written notice to the Respondent in both English and Chinese. Therefore, the Respondent had an opportunity to respond but chose not to do so. Having considered the Complainant's submission regarding the language of the proceedings and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English and shall render its decision in English.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "JUDr. Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-01-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of the following trademarks, among others:\r\n\r\n- TEVA (figurative), Singapore national trademark, filing date 18 December 1991, registration date 18 December 1991, trademark no. T9111063A, registered for pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations, all included in class 5;\r\n\r\n- TEVA (figurative), Australian national trademark, filing date 13 November 1991, registration date 13 November 1991, trademark no. 567236, registered for pharmaceutical substances and compositions for human and veterinary purposes; air purifying medicated antiseptics and detergents; and all other goods in class 5;\r\n\r\n- TEVA (word), Community Trade Mark, filing date 2 June 1999, registration date 18 July 2000, trademark no. 001192830, registered for classes 3, 5 (includes mainly pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes) and 10;\r\n\r\n- TEVA (word), over 20 national trademarks registered by the Complainant for goods in class 5 (includes mainly pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes) before the date of registration of the disputed domain name; the jurisdictions include, for example, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Iceland, Serbia, Slovakia, etc.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the word \"teva\" constitutes a distinctive part of the Complainant's company name under which it operates worldwide. ", "decision_domains": { "TEVAUS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }