Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0667
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:35:42+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Pfizer Inc. of New York, United States of America represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is PrivacyProtect.org of Munsbach, Luxembourg / li, be of the People’s Republic of China.
The disputed domain name <twviagra.com> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2011. On April 15, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2011, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 20, 2011 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 20, 2011.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 2011. 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 has been using the VIAGRA mark in connection with its product in the United States since 1998.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark VIAGRA. For example; United States trademark registration No. 2162548 - VIAGRA, with the registration date of June 2, 1998; Community trademark registration No. 000233890 – VIAGRA, with the registration date of April 21, 1998; Taiwan trademark registration No. 00771202– VIAGRA, with the registration date of August 16, 1997, and many more.
The disputed domain name <twviagra.com> was registered on July 21, 2010.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIAGRA trademark, as it incorporates the VIAGRA trademark as a whole. The Complainant contends that the mere addition of the letters "tw", which is an abbreviation for Taiwan, is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the VIAGRA trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Viagra” “Twviagra” or any variation thereof.
An initial search of the WhoIs database by the Complainant resulted the registrant as being “PrivacyProtect.org”, which is a service that allows registrants to protect their identities. After filing the Complaint, the concerned registrar provided the Center with the registrant's registered identity, physical and email address. The new contact details were forwarded to the Complainant with an invitation to amend the Complaint. The amendment to the Complaint named PrivacyProtect.org as co Respondents and li, be.
Previous UDRP panels under similar circumstances have raised the question of who is the proper respondent, when the privacy service is originally named in the Complaint as the Respondent, and the registrar later discloses the underlying registrant (see BPCE v. PrivacyProtect.org / Maksym Pastukhov, WIPO Case No. D2010-1666; Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D Lec v. Anton Beloshitskiy / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2011-0118).
Paragraph 1 of the Rules, state that a UDRP complaint must be filed against the person identified as the registrant in the registrar’s WhoIs database at the time the Complaint is submitted.
Also, it is the opinion of this Panel that a registrant who chose to register through a privacy service must bear some of the consequences of the anonymous registration (see Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D Lec v. Anton Beloshitskiy / PrivacyProtect.org, (supra); F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin and Mark Sergijenko, WIPO Case No. D2007-1854; Ohio Savings Bank v. 1&1 Internet, Inc. and David Rosenbaum, WIPO Case No. D2006-0881).
It is for these reasons that a privacy provider can be treated as the Respondent. However, since the amended Complaint had identified, li, be, as a valid second Respondent, the Panel will consider li, be as the substantive Respondent in the present case.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant owns numerous worldwide trademark registrations for the mark VIAGRA. For example; United States trademark registration No. 2162548 - VIAGRA, with the registration date of June 2, 1998; Community trademark registration No. 000233890 – VIAGRA, with the registration date of April 21, 1998; Taiwan trademark registration No. 00771202– VIAGRA, with the registration date of August 16, 1997, and many more.
Also, the Complainant's rights in the VIAGRA mark have been established in numerous UDRP decisions (see e.g.; Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2005-0072; Pfizer Inc. v. Jeff Ferris, WIPO Case No. D2006-1242).
The disputed domain name <twviagra.com > differs from the registered VIAGRA trademark by the addition of the two letters “tw” and the additional gTLD “.com”. The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant’s VIAGRA trademark in its entirety, as a dominant element.
The addition of the letters “tw” does not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s VIAGRA trademark, as it indicates a geographical location, which is a market for the Complainants products, and is a descriptive element.
Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The gTLD “.com” is without legal significance since the use of a gTLD is technically required to operate the domain name.
The Complainant also provided evidence to demonstrate its trademark's goodwill. The Panel cites the following with approval; "The Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Trade Mark, cannot be a coincidence… Given the fame of the Trade Mark, there is no other conceivable interpretation of the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name other than that of bad faith" (Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Zhang Yulin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0947). It is therefore unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant upon registering the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, previous UDRP panels have determined that incorporating a widely-known trademark, such as the Complainant's VIAGRA trademark, as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith (see Caixa D´Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. Eric Adam, WIPO Case No. D2006-0464; Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441).
Given the circumstances of this case, the Panel further finds that the Respondent's use of a privacy service is another indication of bad faith registration (Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598). The Respondent failed to submit a Response and indicate any legitimate reason to use a privacy service. The Panel finds it very likely that the Respondent used a privacy service to make it difficult for the Complainant to protect its trademark.
Based on the evidence presented to the Panel, including the late registration of the disputed domain name, the use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark, and the Respondent's use of a privacy service, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
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 <twviagra.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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