The Complainant is Actelion Pharmaceuticals ltd. of Allschwil, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Cyan Yo of Xiamen Fujian, China.
The disputed domain name <valchlorsupport.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2015. On February 27, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2015, the Registrar 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 12, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2015.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 2015. 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, a leading pharmaceutical company, is the owner of the trademark VALCHLOR registered in several jurisdictions and predating the registration date of the disputed domain name, which is September 27, 2014.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it simply adds the generic word “support” to the trademark. This is particularly confusing, because the Complainant operates a support page for its goods sold under the VALCHLOR trademark.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name and has not been permitted by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark.
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is known internationally and the Respondent must have been aware of it when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website presumably generating fees for the Respondent and the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 1,580.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three Policy elements, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
The Complainant has shown that it has registered the trademark VALCHLOR in a number of jurisdictions, including China, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has therefore established that it has rights to the trademark VALCHLOR.
In terms of confusing similarity, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The trademark is combined with the common term “support” in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that a domain name is generally confusingly similar to a mark where it merely adds a common word after a trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the first element of the Policy is established.
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
The consensus view among UDRP panels is that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
The Complainant has submitted that it is not affiliated with the Respondent, it has not authorized the Respondent to use the trademark VALCHLOR or the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted these arguments.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on his website or location.”
The Complainant has submitted evidence of use of its trademark. The evidence shows that the Complainant’s trademark has attracted a considerable amount of publicity. It is therefore unlikely that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that using the disputed domain name for a pay-per-click website directing Internet users to competing service offerings means that the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark to create confusion among Internet users to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain.
Moreover, the Panel find that the offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 1,580 is evidence of an attempt to sell the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name and as such is also evidence of bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.
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 name <valchlorsupport.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2015