The Complainant is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and marketing of innovative medicines, generic pharmaceuticals, and biosimilar products. It was founded in Israel in 1944, following the merger of several pharmaceutical businesses, including one with origins dating back to 1901. The Complainant operates in 57 markets, has 30 manufacturing sites, and employs approximately 34,000 people worldwide. In 2025, the Complainant generated revenues of approximately USD 17.3 billion. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <careers-tevapharm.com> was registered on July 21, 2026 and it currently resolves to an \"account suspended\" webpage, while the disputed domain name <career-tevapharm.com> was registered on August 3, 2026 and it does not resolve to any active website. The disputed domain names were used in connection with a fraudulent employment scheme impersonating the Complainant. In particular, according to the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondents used e-mail addresses corresponding to the disputed domain names to communicate with prospective candidates while falsely presenting themselves as representatives of the Complainant. The communications used the Complainant’s name and logo and other elements intended to create the appearance of genuine recruitment communications. The purported recruitment process involved several rounds of interviews, following which the candidates were directed to purchase various online certifications allegedly intended to enhance their skills and qualifications as a prerequisite for receiving a formal employment offer. The Complainant has documented a number of complaints and reports from persons who were targeted through this scheme.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its TEVA and TEVAPHARM trademarks as these trademarks are contained in its entirety and recognizable within the disputed domain names. Further, the Complainant contends that \".com\" gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded from comparison between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n
Regarding the second UDRP element, the Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondents hold no trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain names and have also never been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondents have not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use its well-known TEVA or TEVAPHARM trademarks, whether as part of the domain names or for any other purposes. The Complainant holds that since the disputed domain names are actively employed by the Respondents in connection with a fraudulent recruitment scheme, such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondents. In particular, prospective job applicants received emails purportedly sent on behalf of the Complainant's human resources team from the email addresses configured on the disputed domain names. The fraudulent nature of these communications is further demonstrated by their email headers and signature blocks, which falsely identified the sender as the Complainant. Recipients were invited to participate in what appeared to be a legitimate recruitment process and, at some point during the recruitment process, they were informed that, in order to proceed with their applications, they needed to further strengthen their proficiency in certain technology skills and, for that purpose, they were required to obtain a skills validation certificate. Applicants were instructed to pay a fee for this certification and were falsely assured that the amount would later be reimbursed by the Complainant. A number of reports was submitted to the Complainant by victims and prospective victims of the fraud. The Complainant also submits that the disputed domain names create a strong and obvious risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant as it is highly likely that Internet users encountering the disputed domain names would mistakenly believe that they are owned, operated, authorized, or otherwise connected with the Complainant, and in particular with its recruitment and human resources activities.<\/p>\n
With respect to the third UDRP element, the Complainant holds that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's well-known TEVA and TEVAPHARM trademarks in their entirety and closely resemble the Complainant’s primary domain name, <tevapharm.com>. Moreover, the Respondents have used the disputed domain names to impersonate the Complainant in connection with a phishing scheme and fraudulent recruitment scam. Taken together, these circumstances clearly demonstrate that the Respondents deliberately targeted the Complainant, its trademarks, and its business activities, and constitute compelling evidence that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The Complainant also adds that the first Respondent has been named as respondent in previous UDRP proceedings, including cases involving the misuse of third-party trademarks in fraudulent phishing schemes. Since the disputed domain names were used to operate a fraudulent recruitment scheme, such conduct is not only harmful to the Complainant's reputation and business interests, but also forms part of a deliberate effort to deceive unsuspecting individuals and induce them to make payments under false pretenses. The Respondents' actions therefore constitute a clear case of impersonation and phishing, designed to mislead recipients into believing that they were participating in a legitimate recruitment process conducted by the Complainant, which constitutes additional evidence of bad faith by the Respondents.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
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": "
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": "
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": "
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
Preliminary issue – <\/strong>Consolidation of Multiple Respondents<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. <\/p>\n The Respondents did not comment on the Complainant’s request.<\/p>\n Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. <\/p>\n In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2.<\/p>\n As regards common control, the Panel notes that although the disputed domain names are registered by the nominally different domain name registrants, using different registrars, they share a number of commonalities, that include the following: <\/p>\n Having in mind the above, the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that all the disputed domain names are under common control.<\/p>\n As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Stefan Bojovic"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-21 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the TEVA and TEVAPHARM trademarks for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.<\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for TEVA and TEVAPHARM including the following:<\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to ownership over the domain names that incorporate its TEVAPHARM trademark, such as <tevapharm.com>, registered on June 14, 1996.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"careers-tevapharm.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"career-tevapharm.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n