Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0589.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:18:50+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Pfizer Inc, New York, United States of America, represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <generic-viagra-online.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Go Daddy Software.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on August�2,�2004. On August�3,�2004, the Center transmitted by email to Go Daddy Software a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August�3,�2004, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August�12,�2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September�1,�2004. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September�2,�2004.
The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as Sole Panelist in this matter on September�8,�2004, indicating that, absent exceptional circumstances, the decision would be due by September�22,�2004.
Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registrations for the words “VIAGRA” in the United States (Registration No. 2,162,584 dated June�2,�1998 - see Annex 3) and in many other countries, including Panama, owned by Complainant or by its wholly owned subsidiaries.
According to the US certificate of registration, the first use of the trademark in commerce was April�6,�1998.
The VIAGRA medication was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March�1998.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on July�21,�2003.
As shown by the printout of the relevant pages of the website to which the Domain Name resolves, headed “Generic Viagra” (Annex 6), Respondent advertises and sells, together with Complainant’s product “Pfizer Viagra”, various other competing products having “the same active ingredient as brand name Viagra: 100% Sildenafil Citrate”.
Respondent’s website contains links to an Online Pharmacy, “Generic Cialis Pharmacy”, which pays up to 25% commission on all sales of the Viagra competing products “Generic Cialis” and “Generic Viagra” when the purchaser accesses the online pharmacy by clicking one of the buttons, banners or text links added on the website of an affiliate .
- By taking Complainant’s trademark as his domain name, Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
In the Panel’s view it is beyond dispute that Complainant has trademark rights in the “VIAGRA” name which is an invented word with a high degree of inherent distinctiveness and is well known in respect of a drug addressing erectile dysfunction (Pfizer Inc v. The Magic Islands, WIPO Case No. D2003-0870; Pfizer Inc. v. Martin Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2003-0793).
The Domain Name entirely incorporates Complainant’s trademark “VIAGRA” with the addition of the descriptive and generic term “generic”.
It is an established principle that the mere addition of generic terms and/or numbers does not create a different trademark in which the respondent has rights and cannot be considered sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name and the complainant’s trademark (GA Modefine SA v. Riccardo Bin Kara-Mat, WIPO Case No. D2002-0195; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0022; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Gray West International, WIPO Case No. D2000-1219; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp, WIPO Case No. D2000-0464).
Through the suffix “online”, which indicates the presence on the Internet, the likelihood of confusion appears rather aggravated than diminished. Indeed, as stated by the Panel in Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Joseph Fisher, WIPO Case No. D2000-1412, the “online” term “is the e-commerce equivalent of shop or store” and misleads Internet users into believing that at the URL “www.generic-viagra-online.com” they can access Complainant’s website containing information and services associated to the trademark “VIAGRA” (Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Steven Heiberger and Legacy Development USA, WIPO Case No. D2002-0336; Barclays Bank PLC v. Mr. Mohammed Hassan, WIPO Case No. D2001-0253; Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Domain Manager, PageUp Communications, WIPO Case No. D2003-0602).
Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the trademark for the term “VIAGRA” and that the Domain Name was registered by Respondent on or about July�21,�2003. Based on Complainant’s submissions, the Panel considers that at that time Complainant had acquired a considerable reputation throughout the world for the “VIAGRA” mark in respect of a drug addressing erectile dysfunction.
Complainant also contends that Respondent is not and never has been a representative of Complainant or licensed to use the VIAGRA trademark and that is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, since Respondent’s website (i) advertises and sells an alleged generic version of VIAGRA; and (ii) is connected to an online pharmacy supplier selling various competing products of the genuine Viagra sildenafil citrate which grants Respondent up to 25% commission on each sale.
In line with previous UDRP decisions (Chanel Inc. v. Cologne Zone, WIPO Case No. D2000-1809; National Collegiate Athletic Association and March Madness Athletic Association, L.L.C. v. Mark Halpern and Front & Center Entertainment, WIPO Case No. D2000-0700; Pfizer Inc. v. The Magic Islands, WIPO Case No. D2003-0870; Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. Technilab Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1774) the Panel considers that no good faith can be assumed in Respondent’s conduct, in view of the fact that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark and is used in connection with the promotion and sale of competing products.
The Panel is convinced that Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith, to intentionally attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by trading on the goodwill associated with the VIAGRA brand and mark and creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of the products and services offered on the site (paragraph 4 c (iv) of the Policy).
As mentioned in paragraph 6(A) above, Complainant’s trademark “VIAGRA” has acquired worldwide reputation, identifying the sildenafil citrate pharmaceutical product developed, manufactured and marketed by Complainant. It is therefore inconceivable that Respondent registered the Domain Name unaware of Complainant’s rights in its VIAGRA mark and with an intent to use it in good faith. Respondent appears rather to have intentionally registered the Domain Name, entirely incorporating Complainant’s mark, to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the VIAGRA trademark.
Furthermore, the printout of the relevant pages of Respondent’s website “generic-viagra-online.com” shows that Respondent has been using the Domain Name to promote and sell, for commercial gain, sildenafil citrate pharmaceutical products as “generic Viagra”, which directly compete with Complainant’s genuine Viagra.
This is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name under paragraph 4 (c) (iii) of the Policy (Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Liu Xingdong, WIPO Case No. D2003-0408; Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110; The Body Shop International plc v. A-Team/ Lasse Nygaard, WIPO Case No. DAS2003-0001; Bartercard Ltd & Bartercard International Pty Ltd . v. Ashton-Hall Computer Services., WIPO Case No. D2000-0177).
In addition, the fact that Respondent’s website is affiliated with an online pharmacy, which promises up to 25% commission for each sale made with any Internet user captured through the affiliates’ websites, shows Respondent’s intent, for commercial gain, to re-direct Internet users, especially potential customers of Complainant, from the latter’s website to the web page of the “Generic Cialis Pharmacy”, which directly competes with Complainant. As the Panel found in NetWizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-1768 “the registration and use of a domain name to re-direct Internet users to websites of competing organizations constituted bad faith use and registration” (see also Zwack Unicum Rt. v. Erica J. Duna, WIPO Case No. D2000-0037, E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC. v. Roy Duke, WIPO Case No. D2003-0806).
In the light of the foregoing, Respondent’s conduct amounts to unfair competition because current and potential Viagra users may choose a competitor’s product based on the absence of Complainant’s product in the website to which they are re-directed.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, that the Domain Name <generic-viagra-online.com> be transferred to Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.