About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Pierre Fabre Medicament v. Private Whois dexeryl.com

Case No. D2012-0707

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pierre Fabre Medicament, Castres Cedex, France, represented by SCP Deprez, Guignot et Associés, France.

The Respondent is Private Whois dexeryl.com, Nassau, Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <dexeryl.com> is registered with Internet.bs Corp.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 4, 2012. On April 4, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Internet.bs Corp a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 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 April 11, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 1, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2012.

The Center appointed Mr. Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 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.

4. Factual Background

Founded in 1961 in France by M. Pierre Fabre, and present in over 130 countries, the Complainant is a worldwide company for medicine and dermo cosmetics products. It is the 2nd largest French pharmaceutical laboratory in the field of cancerology, urology and cardiology. The company's business activity is focused on research, development, manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics, prescription medicines and family health products.

The Complainant owns the French trademark DEXERYL, first registered on March 10, 1997, and the International trademark DEXERYL, first registered on May 25, 1999.

The trademark DEXERYL has been used for many years for adjunctive treatment of states of dryness of the skin, such as eczema, and for superficial burns.

The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on July 2, 2006. The webpage of the Respondent redirects Internet users to websites selling cream to treat eczema and psoriasis and to websites selling the cream "Dexeryl" which are not affiliated with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts the following:

The disputed domain name is identical to the trademark DEXERYL for which the Complainant has registered trademark rights.

Given the well-known arbitrary DEXERYL mark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademarks and company name when it registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Moreover, it seems clear that the Respondent provided false and misleading contact information since the Whois requests to contact the owner by email only, while there is no valid email address indicated.

The webpage of the Respondent redirects Internet users to websites selling cream to treat eczema and psoriasis and to websites selling the cream "Dexeryl" which are not affiliated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name is thus used in bad faith to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s DEXERYL trademarks. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.

Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It may be concluded under the circumstances of this case that the Respondent must have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation when the disputed domain name was registered.

The disputed domain name is being used to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to competing products and services, with the intention to generate income for the Respondent. Such conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use and the Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <dexeryl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2012