{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107204", "time_of_filling": "2024-12-23 11:04:33", "domain_names": [ "tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltd.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "mersal Markt" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

The Complainant is an international pharmaceutical group established in 1901. It provides over 3,500 medicines reaching hundreds of millions of people daily across 58 markets, and employs over 37,000 staff worldwide.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <tevapharm.com> registered in 1996.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <tevapharmaceuticalindustriesltd.info> was registered on December 15, 2024 and resolves to an active webpage composed of a website template. MX records are configured on the domain name.

<\/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": "

A. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n


The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark TEVA. The only difference lies in the addition of the generic terms “pharmaceutical”, “industries” and “ltd” to trademark TEVA in the domain name.

It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark TEVA. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.info” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.

B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

<\/p>\n

The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

From the Complainant’s perspective, the Respondent deliberately chose to incorporate the well-known, distinctive trademark TEVA in the disputed domain name, very likely with the intention to attract Internet traffic by benefiting from the Complainant’s worldwide renown.<\/p>\n

The Complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH

i. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark TEVA.

The Complainant’s trademark TEVA is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark TEVA.

<\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the fact exposed above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states that the use of the terms “pharmaceutical”, “industries” and “ltd” in the domain name, thereby reproducing the Complainant’s legal name in the domain name.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Complainant equally submits that there is no plausible explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name in good faith by the Respondent. Moreover, the fact that MX records are linked to the domain name is a further element of the Respondent's bad faith.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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 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).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the numerous trademarks, including:<\/p>\n