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

Maxcenter Distribuidora Comercio e Franqueamento Ltda. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Trindade de Mata, Drogarias Max

Case No. D2020-1479

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Maxcenter Distribuidora Comercio e Franqueamento Ltda., Brazil, represented by Montaury Pimenta, Machado & Vieira de Mello, Brazil.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Trindade de Mata, Drogarias Max, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <drogariasmax.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 14, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 15, 2020

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 10, 2020.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2020. 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

The Complainant is a Brazilian drugstore franchise, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which has been operating for 37 years. The Complainant operates a chain of more than 110 stores across the state of Rio de Janeiro, always under the trademark DROGARIAS MAX.

The Complainant owns several registrations and applications for the trademark DROGARIAS MAX and variations, including the Brazilian registration number 817248935, registered on May 24, 1993. The Complainant also holds the domain name <drogariasmax.com.br>, registered in its name since January 18, 2000. Evidence of these registrations were duly produced in the Complaint as Annexes 5 and 6 of the Complaint.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2020. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks and domain name registered under its name. In fact, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark

The Complainant owns several registrations for the trademark DROGARIAS MAX, as well as variations such as MAX and others, as well as a domain name bearing this mark, as evidenced by the Annexes mentioned above. Also evidence of the history of the Complainant and the renown of the mark DROGARIAS MAX within Brazil was produced in Annex 4 of the Complaint.

The disputed domain name adopted by the Respondent – a reproduction of the Complainant’s registered mark - shows a clear intention of misleading Internet users. The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name gives the impression that it is in all ways associated with the Complainant, as it is a blatant reproduction of its trademark.

Accessing the disputed domain name, it does not resolve to an active website, as shown in Annex 7 of the Complaint. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name as it is currently held demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest from the Respondent in respect of the domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:

i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; and

iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark DROGARIAS MAX, registered in Brazil. In addition, the Complainant has been running an extensive chain of drugstores for decades under the DROGARIAS MAX mark, as evidenced by Annex 4 of the Complaint.

Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent.

Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements in the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant in this dispute.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark DROGARIAS MAX is naturally associated with the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for over 37 years.

Further, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence of the fame of the mark DROGARIAS MAX and the drugstore services rendered under this name to its clients. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark DROGARIAS MAX, and its direct relation to the Complainant.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent.

It has also been shown that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, supporting a finding that it was registered to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel believes that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has in all probability registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with an official website of the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for unlawful purposes. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent in the circumstances of this case.

Further, use of a privacy service in these circumstances supports a finding of bad faith.

All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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 disputed domain name <drogariasmax.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: July 31, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/