{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106585", "time_of_filling": "2024-06-06 10:26:44", "domain_names": [ "wegocoveram.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BIOFARMA" ], "complainant_representative": "IP TWINS", "respondent": [ "Taiwo Oni (Taiwo Oni)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant made the following submissions<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that it is a part of the “Servier Group”, the second largest pharmaceutical French group in the world. The Complainant claims that this group is active in 150 countries and employs more than 21,000 people throughout the world and 100 million patients are treated daily with “Servier” products.<\/p>\n

The Complainant provided some data and information about the “Servier Group” in annexes to the complaint.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that “COVERAM” is a medicine used for the treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, it is distributed in several countries and it provides a non-exhaustive list of countries where “COVERAM” is distributed as well as information about the medicine.<\/p>\n

The “COVERAM” trademark of the Complainant is protected in numerous jurisdictions in addition to the registrations referred to above and the Complainant provides a list of such registrations in a separate annex.<\/p>\n

The Complainant emphasizes that its trademark registrations pre-date the date of registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

According to the Whois data the creation date of the disputed domain name is March 31, 2022.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active web page.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark since the disputed domain name contains the mark in its entirety and the mark is a fanciful term.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the term “wego” does not diminish the risk of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark COVERAM.<\/p>\n

Internet users are likely to read the disputed domain name as “We Go Coveram” and presume it is a slogan promoting the “COVERAM” medicine.<\/p>\n

The addition of the <.com> gTLD does not diminish confusing similarity as it is a technical requirement.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant makes the following submissions on the second UDRP element:<\/p>\n

- The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent cannot claim to have been legitimately known under the names “COVERAM”, or the expressions “WEGO COVERAM” or ‘WE GO COVERAM”, as a genuine business or a website. The Complainant provided “Google” search results for the following terms: “COVERAM”, “WEGO COVERAM” and “WE GO COVERAM”. The Complainant highlights that such search results are almost exclusively associated with the Complainant;<\/p>\n

- Trademark searches on “COVERAM”, “WEGO COVERAM” and “WE GO COVERAM” performed by the Complainant did not allow to detect any trademark right that could justify Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

- The Complainant’s verifications did not allow to find any clue of preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as it redirects towards an error page;<\/p>\n

- The Respondent has never been granted authorization, license or any right whatsoever to use the trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent is not commercially linked to the Complainant;<\/p>\n

- Since the adoption and extensive use by the Complainant of the trademark “COVERAM” predate the registration of the disputed domain name 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.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant makes the following submissions on the bad faith registration and use:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The “Servier Group” is so widely well-known, and the “COVERAM” trademark so widely used while being a very distinctive, fanciful word (the Complainant refers to annexes its complaint) that it is very unlikely that the Respondent ignored the rights of the Complainant in respect of “COVERAM”. The Complainant asserts that its registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A quick trademark search and\/or a search engine query would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks. Respondent’s failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith. The Complainant again refers to its “Google” searches provided in annex for the following terms: “coveram”, “wego coveram” and “we go coveram”;<\/li>\n
  2. The Complainant states that \"coveram\" is an arbitrary, fanciful term, devoid of any meaning in any dictionary to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge. The combination of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and its extensive use across the world makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know about the Complainant before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent cannot claim to have registered the disputed domain name due to a dictionary meaning or a supposed value as generic term or expression. The Complainant refers to annexes and contends that there is no way the registration of the disputed domain name is a mere coincidence. The Complainant strongly believes that the disputed domain name has been registered with the Complainant’s trademark in mind.<\/li>\n
  3. The Complainant relies on the passive holding doctrine as formulated in “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 <\/strong>and in sec. 3.3 of “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition<\/strong>” (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In particular, the Complainant claims that the relevant issue is not limited to whether the Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith in relation to the domain name, but instead whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the Respondent is acting in bad faith. The distinction between undertaking a positive action in bad faith and acting in bad faith may seem a rather fine distinction, but it is an important one. The significance of the distinction is that the concept of a domain name “being used in bad faith” is not limited to positive action. The disputed domain name contains the prior, arbitrary, intensively used trademark of the Complainant, associated with the generic expression “we go”. The Complainant cannot imagine a good-faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, in light of the above.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

    The Complainant's submissions are summarized above in the Factual Background section. <\/p>\n

    The Respondent did not submit a formal response.<\/p>\n

    However, the Respondent sent an email to the Provider on June 18, 2024 and stated the following:<\/p>\n

    “I received a proceeding letter as described above, I'm wondering what this is all about. I bought the domain name from a host administrator called Fasthost in the UK. I was not informed that there is a dispute about the domain name. I hope this is not a scam”.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

    The Panel did not make a finding on this element of the UDRP<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

    The Complainant has not, 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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>\n

    The Panel needs to address the following procedural issues:<\/p>\n

    1) Informal response<\/strong> and<\/p>\n

    2) Panel's procedural order and additional submissions by the Complainant in response to the procedural order<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    1) The Respondent did not file a formal response, however he sent an email to the CAC with the content described above. While this short email does not explain Respondent’s reasons for registering the disputed domain name, it seems to deny the allegations in the complaint. Such an informal response in any case lacks substance and certification that it is “complete and accurate” (Rule 5 (c)(vii)), yet the Panel takes it into consideration keeping in mind its obligation to give each party “a fair opportunity to present its case” (Rule 10 (b)).<\/p>\n

    2) The Panel notes that the Complainant provided “Google” search results for the following terms as one of the annexes to the complaint:
    -    \"coveram\"
    -    \"wego coveram\" and
    -    \"we go coveram\".<\/p>\n

    These “Google” results were the basis of the Complainant’s arguments on the bad faith element and the application of \"passive holding\" to the present dispute. <\/p>\n

    However, the Complainant did not submit “Google” search results for \"wegocoveram\", the exact match of the second level domain. 
    The Complainant relied on the \"passive holding doctrine\" and one of the important criteria of passive holding is \"the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put<\/em><\/strong>\". 
    The Panel conducted its own independent research for the term \"wegocoveram\" in “Google” in accordance with Rule 10 of the UDRP Rules and sec. 4.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0. 
    The Panel conducted \"Google\" searches for the term \"wegocoveram\" both before the date of creation of the disputed domain name - March 31, 2022 and on the date of its Procedural Order - July 8, 2024. 
    The “Google” search results for \"wegocoveram\" available before March 31, 2022 did not contain any references to the Complainant’s “Coveram” trademark.<\/p>\n

    All such search results were related to a phrase: “we go cover am” that seems to be some kind of a slogan used by mainly African English-speaking community. <\/p>\n

    The “Google” search results for \"wegocoveram\" available on July 08, 2024 contained one (1) result related to the present administrative proceeding and the disputed domain name (a link to the CAC website). 
    All other results were related to the phrase: “we go cover am”.<\/p>\n

    One of such results linked to a website: https:\/\/rocketreach.co\/taiwo-oni-email_136378221<\/a> where the following information was provided: “Others Named Taiwo Oni. Taiwo Oni <\/strong>
    Digital Strategy and Tech Start-up Facilitator at WGCA Ltd (We Go Cover Am) InsurTech<\/strong>”. <\/p>\n

    The Panel also conducted a search for the term “Am” and found out that “Am” has a meaning in “Nigerian Pidgin English” and is a short form of “Him” or “Her” in a sentence, see http:\/\/naijalingo.com\/words\/am<\/a>  <\/p>\n

    The Panel made these findings available to the Complainant, issued a Procedural Order No. 1 on July 08, 2024 and invited the Complainant to provide its comments until July 12, 2024.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant provided additional submissions in response to the Procedural Order on July 11, 2024 and stated the following:
    -    “COVERAM” is a distinctive trademark, which is widely used across dozens of countries, including Nigeria, which slang was referred to in the Panelist’s comment. The “COVERAM” medicine can be bought from several online stores available to Nigerian internet users;
    -    The Respondent had a chance to respond to the complaint but did not, which is a factor for the application of the passive holding doctrine;
    -    The Respondent’s information was not available to the Complainant at the time of filing of the complaint. The Complainant contends that there is no supportive evidence of the link of the Respondent, domiciliated in Great Britain, with what appears to be Nigerian Slang;
    -    The Complainant acknowledges the expression uncovered by the Panel independent findings. However, considering the reputation and use of “COVERAM”, the Complainant maintains that the probability of a good faith use of the disputed domain name is still low, and that passive holding should be considered for the bad faith use criteria and
    -    Had the Respondent provided a response in line with the Panel findings, its stance would have been different. In this case, the Complainant would like to maintain its complaint and submitted additional annex relating to the information about sale of “COVERAM” medicine in Nigeria.<\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

    In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n