The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, internally represented.
The Respondent is Private Whois Service c/o buyvaliumrew.com c/o buyvaliumonlinerew.com c/o genericvaliumrew.com of Nassau, Bahamas.
The disputed domain names <buyvaliumonlinerew.com>, <buyvaliumrew.com>, and <genericvaliumrew.com> are registered with Internet.bs Corp.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2012. On March 23, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Internet.bs Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 26, 2012, Internet.bs Corp. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 17, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 18, 2012.
The Center appointed R. Eric Gaum as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, is the owner of the trademark VALIUM, which is protected by, inter alia, International Registration No. 250784, with a priority date for the mark of October 20, 1961.
The mark VALIUM designates a sedative and anxiolytic drug belonging to the benzodiazepine family. The Complainant holds registrations for the mark VALIUM in over a hundred countries on a worldwide basis.
The Respondent is Private Whois Service c/o buyvaliumrew.com c/o buyvaliumonlinerew.com c/o genericvaliumrew.com, which has a contact address located in Nassau, Bahamas.
The disputed domain names were all registered on March 6, 2012.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark seeing that they incorporate the mark VALIUM in its entirety. The addition of the terms “buy”, “online” and “generic” as well as “rew” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from the trademark.
The mark VALIUM is well-known and notorious. The notoriety will increase the likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the Complainant’s use and registration of the mark VALIUM predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the VALIUM trademark of the Complainant.
The Complainant has exclusive rights for VALIUM, and no license, permission, authorization, or consent respectively was granted to use VALIUM in the domain names. Therefore the disputed domain names clearly allude to the Complainant. The Respondent is using the disputed domain names to direct Internet users to websites which are offering/selling the Complainant’s products.
The Respondent’s only reason in registering and using the disputed domain names is to benefit from the reputation of the trademark VALIUM and illegitimately trade on its fame for commercial gain and profit. There is no reason why the Respondent should have any rights or interests in the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names were registered in bad faith since at the time of the registrations, i.e., March 6, 2012, the Respondent certainly knew of the Complainant’s product/mark VALIUM. The disputed domain names are also being used in bad faith. This is obvious since when viewing the websites under the disputed domain names one realizes that the Respondent is intentionally attempting (for commercial purpose) to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or of the products or services posted on or linked to the Respondent’s websites.
The Respondent, by using the disputed domain names, is intentionally misleading consumers and confusing them so as to attract them to other websites making them believe that the websites behind those links are associated or recommended by the Complainant. As a result, the Respondent may generate unjustified revenues and therefore is illegitimately capitalizing on the VALIUM trademark fame.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, a “Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, [the] Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and,
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences as are appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s assertions and evidence or to otherwise contest the Complaint. The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064. As a result of the Respondent’s default, the Panel may even accept as true all of the allegations of the Complaint. Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the mark VALIUM, which is protected by, inter alia, International Registration No. 250784 having a priority date for the mark of October 20, 1961. Based on the registered trademark and the Complainant’s continuous use of the VALIUM mark, the Complainant clearly has rights in the mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALIUM trademark. The disputed domain names all incorporate the VALIUM mark in its entirety, which alone has been held sufficient to support a finding that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. See Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Patsy Hail, WIPO Case No. D2008-1343; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662. Furthermore, the addition of non-distinctive or generic terms is insufficient to avoid confusion. Diageo Ireland v. Guinnessclaim, WIPO Case No. D2009-0679; Roche Products Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Christian Hunter, WIPO Case No. D2010-1892.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the VALIUM trademark, and that the Complainant has established it has rights in the trademark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists several circumstances, without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Further there is no evidence in the record that would indicate that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Presumably, the Respondent would have provided a response to the Complaint had it had any rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, which are set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the domain name holder has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the domain name holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the domain name holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the domain name holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known VALIUM mark, and using the disputed domain names as a forwarding address for online pharmacies. This practice has been recognized as sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use. Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-0784.
As already mentioned, nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent is making any other legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain names. Presumably, the Respondent would have provided a response to the Complaint if it had been.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith, pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <buyvaliumonlinerew.com>, <buyvaliumrew.com>, and <genericvaliumrew.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
R. Eric Gaum
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 8, 2012