{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107080",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-11-21 11:12:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltd.site",
        "tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltds.site",
        "tevapharmaceuticalsltds.website"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB",
    "respondent": [
        "Brendon Lyon (premiermidtownrealtys)",
        "Wyatt Mccage"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Complainant, established in 1901, is an internationally active and widely known pharmaceutical company. The Complainant maintains a portfolio of approximately 3,600 medicines, reaching some 200 million people across 58 markets and six continents every day. The Complainant has over 50 manufacturing facilities and in the region of 37,000 employees. <\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Complainant is repeatedly featured in lists collating the world&rsquo;s top generic drug manufacturers.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Complainant and its affiliated companies hold many domain names which encompass the TEVA mark, tailored for different jurisdictions around the world. For example, the Complainant uses&nbsp;<\/span>&lt;tevausa.com&gt;&nbsp;in connection with its United States site,&nbsp;&lt;tevauk.com&gt;&nbsp;for the United Kingdom, and&nbsp;&lt;tevaitalia.it&gt;&nbsp;for Italy. The Complainant&rsquo;s domain name portfolio also includes, in addition to&nbsp;&lt;tevapharm.com&gt;,&nbsp;&lt;tevapharma.com&gt;&nbsp;(registered on 18 December 2000) and&nbsp;&lt;tevapharm.us&gt;<span data-contrast=\"auto\"> (registered on 24 April 2002). <\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Complainant has been successful in numerous domain name dispute proceedings involving the TEVA brand.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant has requested that the Respondents be consolidated into one single Complaint. According to the Complainant the disputed domain names are, despite the differing respondent identities disclosed by the registrar, subject to common control. According to the Complainant this is apparent through the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The disputed domain names all involve very similar compositions. In particular, each domain name consists of the Complainant's TEVA mark and either the singular or plural form of the terms 'pharmaceutical' and 'ltd'. The domain names' second levels each reflect an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. The domain names also involve similar gTLD extensions (i.e., '.site' and '.website', which refer to the same thing).<\/li>\n<li>The disputed domain names have been registered only several days apart from one another, and with the same registrar (Hostinger Operations, UAB).<\/li>\n<li>The disputed domain names have been used to resolve to the same registrar parking page.<\/li>\n<li>Each of the disputed domain names has been configured with multiple mail exchange (MX) records.<\/li>\n<li>One of the registrant identities ('Brendon Lyon' \/ 'premiermidtownrealtys') has, as reflected in the decision Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Brendon Lyon, premiermidtownrealtys and Webpadi Channel, zzm, WIPO Case No. D2024-3435, been a respondent of other highly similar domain names to those in the present proceeding. These disputed domain names include, notably, &lt;tevapharmaceuticals.website&gt;. Except for the omission of 'ltds', the latter domain name exactly matches (both at the second- and top-level) the currently disputed domain name &lt;tevapharmaceuticalsltds.website&gt;, which is associated with the registrant identity 'Wyatt Mccage'.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>In summary, given the composition of the disputed domain names, timing of the disputed domain names' registrations, choice of registrar, and several other considerations including prior conduct associated with one of the disclosed registrant identities, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same underlying person\/entity. Additionally, the Complainant notes the use of at least one of the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent email phishing activity and, therefore, the increased likelihood that some\/all of the disclosed registrant details do not reflect the actual identity or location of the disputed domain names' underlying controller.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant further submits that the consolidation of the Respondents would be fair and equitable to the Parties. With the disputed domain names being subject to common control, no good purpose would be served by requiring the Complainant to refile, at additional time and expense, a separate complaint for one or more of the domain names.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it. <br \/>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>The Complainant has requested that the Respondents be consolidated into one single Complaint. This request is granted in accordance with Paragraphs 10(e) and 3(c) of the Rules.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control for the following reasons:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The domain names all involve very similar compositions. In particular, each domain name consists of the Complainant's TEVA mark and either the singular or plural form of the terms 'pharmaceutical' and 'ltd'. The domain names' second levels each reflect an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. The domain names also involve similar gTLD extensions (i.e., '.site' and '.website', which refer to the same thing).<\/li>\n<li>The domain names have been registered only several days apart from one another, and with the same registrar (<span data-contrast=\"auto\">Hostinger Operations, UAB<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>The domain names have been used to resolve to the same registrar parking page.<\/li>\n<li>Each of the domain names has been configured with multiple mail exchange (MX) records.<\/li>\n<li>One of the registrant identities ('Brendon Lyon' \/ 'premiermidtownrealtys') has, as reflected in the decision Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Brendon Lyon, premiermidtownrealtys and Webpadi Channel, zzm, WIPO Case No. D2024-3435, been a respondent of other highly similar domain names to those in the present proceeding. These domain names include, notably,&nbsp;&lt;tevapharmaceuticals.website&gt;. Except for the omission of 'ltds', the latter domain name exactly matches (both at the second- and top-level) the currently disputed domain name&nbsp;&lt;tevapharmaceuticalsltds.website&gt;, which is associated with the registrant identity 'Wyatt Mccage'.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Given the composition of the domain names, timing of the domain names' registrations, choice of registrar, and several other considerations including prior conduct associated with one of the disclosed registrant identities, it is accepted that the domain names are controlled by the same underlying person\/entity. The use of at least one of the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent email phishing activities increase the likelihood that the disclosed registrant details do not reflect the actual identity or location of the domain names' underlying controller.<\/p>\n<p>There is no reason to find that the consolidation of the Respondents would be unfair and inequitable to the Parties. With the disputed domain names being subject to common control, no good purpose would be served by requiring the Complainant to refile, at additional time and expense, a separate complaint for one or more of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;In light of the above, the Complainant requested that the disputed domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated in a single UDRP proceeding. The Respondent has not in any way challenged the prima facie evidence provided by the Complainant as no administratively compliant Response was filed. The evidence provided by the Complainant, including that of the same registrar, the same structure of the disputed domain names, are sufficient to convince the Panel of the existence of common control over these disputed domain names. For that reason, the Panel finds that the consolidation of the dispute to be equitable and procedurally efficient.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Udo Pfleghar B.A. (Melb.)"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations, including the following:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table width=\"854\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p><strong>Trademark<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p><strong>Origin<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p><strong>Registration Number<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p><strong>Registration Date<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p><strong>Class(es) Covered<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>TEVA&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>Israel&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>41075&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>05\/07\/1977&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>5&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>TEVA&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>United States&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>1567918&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>28\/11\/1989&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>5&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>TEVA&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>European Union&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>001192830&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>18\/07\/2000&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>3, 5, 10&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>&nbsp;TEVA (With design elements)&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>International&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>1319184&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>15\/06\/2016&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>5, 10, 42&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>&nbsp;TEVA (With design elements)&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>European Union&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>015135908&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>28\/07\/2016&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<p>1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 16, 35, 42, 44&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltd.site": "TRANSFERRED",
        "tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltds.site": "TRANSFERRED",
        "tevapharmaceuticalsltds.website": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}