Complainant was incorporated in Israel on February 13, 1944, as the successor to several Israeli corporations, the oldest of which was established in 1901. Complainant is a global pharmaceutical company providing high-quality, patient-centric healthcare solutions used by millions of patients daily. It is one of the world’s largest producers of generic medicines, with a portfolio of approximately 3,600 products spanning nearly every therapeutic area. As reported in its 2024 annual report, Complainant was active in 57 countries, employing approximately 37,000 individuals worldwide, and generating revenues exceeding USD 16.5 billion. Complainant promotes its goods online through multiple official websites, including <teva.com.br>, registered on March 8, 2006, and operated by one of its national affiliates for the Brazilian market.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2025, and currently resolves to a registrar’s parking page.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANT:
(i) The Complainant holds rights in the TEVA and TEVA design trademarks, as set forth in the “Identification of Rights” section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TEVA, as it incorporates the TEVA mark in its entirety, followed only by the descriptive or geographic term “brasil,” and the “.com” gTLD.<\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s TEVA mark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar’s parking page.<\/p>\n (iii)The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It reproduces in full the Complainant’s TEVA mark, without consent or authorization. The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2025, while the Complainant’s TEVA mark has been registered internationally for many years. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. A simple search in an online trademark register, or in the Google search engine, would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and its rights in TEVA. It is inconceivable that the Respondent would have chosen the disputed domain name without having the Complainant and its TEVA mark in mind. The fact that the Respondent registered the domain name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known trademark is, in itself, sufficient to support a finding of bad faith. Although the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page, the non-use of a domain name, under the doctrine of passive holding, does not preclude a finding of bad faith when considered in light of the attendant circumstances. <\/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": " Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Panel has discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, taking into account the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). <\/p>\n The Complainant contends as follows:<\/p>\n The disputed domain name is exclusively composed of Latin alphabet letters, not Chinese characters;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating English-language terms, evidencing the Respondent’s familiarity with the English language;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Complainant and its representative, located in Israel and Sweden respectively, do not have knowledge of the Chinese language but are capable of communicating in English, the principal language of international communication;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Requiring translation into Chinese would impose disproportionate costs on the Complainant, likely exceeding the overall costs of these proceedings, and would cause undue delay; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct involving the registration of domain names infringing upon third-party trademark rights.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Accordingly, the Complainant asserts that requiring a translation of the Complaint into Chinese would be inequitable, burdensome, and unjustified under the specific circumstances of this case. <\/p>\n Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that the Complainant has advanced a persuasive argument. In view of the specific circumstances of this case, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English. The Panel is further satisfied that all remaining procedural requirements under the UDRP have been fulfilled, and there exists no impediment to the issuance of a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-21 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant is the owner of numerous TEVA-formative trademarks registered in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the following:<\/p>\n\n
\n