{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108015", "time_of_filling": "2025-10-06 15:25:16", "domain_names": [ "tevapharmaceuticalco.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd." ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "Jenny Danny" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a globally recognized pharmaceutical company established in 1901, operating in 57 markets with approximately 37,000 employees and a portfolio of around 3,500 products. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the term “TEVA” in various jurisdictions and maintains a substantial domain name portfolio incorporating the TEVA mark.<\/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 asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered TEVA trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the TEVA mark in its entirety as the leading element, with the additional terms “PHARMACEUTICAL” and “CO” being merely descriptive or generic and not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant relies on the consensus view reflected in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and references prior decisions (CAC-UDRP-107854, CAC-UDRP-107025) to support its position that the TEVA mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name and that the addition of descriptive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, does not possess any trademark rights for it, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the TEVA mark. The disputed domain name resolves to a holding page with no substantive content, which the Complainant argues does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial use. The Complainant refers to section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and prior decisions (NAF Case No. 2009654, WIPO Case No. D2023-1279, NAF Case No. 1785283) to support its argument that the Respondent’s use does not establish rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s TEVA mark is distinctive and enjoys significant international reputation, making it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights. The composition of the disputed domain name is said to intentionally target the Complainant and suggest affiliation or endorsement. The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name is configured with active MX records, which creates a risk of deceptive e-mail activity and supports an inference of bad faith. The Complainant relies on section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and prior decisions (WIPO Case No. D2022-0955, WIPO Case No. D2023-2766, WIPO Case No. D2023-3935, WIPO Case No. D2023-2997, NAF Case No. 1998634, WIPO Case No. D2022-3791) to substantiate its claim of bad faith registration and use.<\/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 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the <\/div>\n