Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-2463
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:50:06+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. of Nutley, New Jersy, United States of America, represented internally.
Respondent is Private Registration of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
The disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on December 14, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 17, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On December 17, 2012, the Center transmitted an email communications to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On December 18, 2012, Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 27, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 16, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 17, 2013.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on January 24, 2013. 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.
Complainant is Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., a company incorporated in Nutley, New Jersy, United States of America (USA). Complainant is, together with its affiliated companies, engaged in research and development of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. It is a member of the Roche Group, one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups and having global operations in more than 100 countries.
Complainant has exclusive rights in the ACCUTANE marks. Complainant is an exclusive owner of famous and well-known registered trademarks ACCUTANE globally (since at least 1979; see Annex 4 to the Complaint), including the USA (since at least 1973; see Annex 3 to the Complaint). It also owns the domain name registrations, such as <accutane.com>, incorporating the ACCUTANE mark.
Respondent is Private Registration of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. The disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> was registered on November 15, 2012, long after the ACCUTANE marks were registered (Annex 3 to the Complaint).
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to various trademark registrations in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant is an exclusive owner of famous registered trademarks ACCUTANE globally (since 1979; see Annex 4 to the Complaint), including the USA (since at least 1973).
ACCUTANE is an alternative trademark (USA version) for the trademark ROACCUTAN, which is protected in a multitude of countries worldwide (since at least 1979, see Annex 4 to the Complaint).
The mark ACCUTANE designates a dermatological preparation in the form of a product indicated for the treatment and prevention of acne. This mark was extensively promoted for many years in print advertisements. The sales of the Accutane product in the USA have exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars.
Complainant’s use and registration of the mark ACCUTANE do predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has exclusive rights for ACCUTANE, and no Licence/permission/authorization respectively consent was granted to use ACCUTANE in the disputed domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name for “commercial gain” and with the purpose of capitalizing on the fame of Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name in question clearly alludes to Complainant.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a pharmacy on-line (“www.tabletspharmacy.org”) offering “Generic Accutane” as well as other drugs. (Annex 6 to the Complaint).
There is no reason why Respondent should have any right or interest in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since at the time of the registration (on November 15, 2012), Respondent had, no doubt, knowledge of Complainant’s well-known product/mark ACCUTANE.
The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith. The Internet-website from Respondent (see Annex 6 to the Complaint) shows that Respondent is intentionally attempting (for commercial purpose) to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well-known mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent’s website.
Previous UDRP panel held that bad faith is established when “Respondent is using the domain names as a forwarding address to a for-profit on-line pharmacy” (Annex 9 to the Compliant).
Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, is intentionally misleading the consumers and confusing them by making them believe that the websites behind those links are associated or recommended by Complainant.
As a result, Respondent may generate unjustified revenues and therefore is illegitimately capitalizing on the ACCUTANE trademark fame.
(a) Complainant has upon submission of the subject Complaint on December 14, 2012 pointed out to Annex 2 i.e. a printout of Registrar’s Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.’s Registration Agreement. Aforementioned information is in English language.
(b) Complainant sent a notice of objection/cease and desist letter to Respondent with a copy to the Registrar in English language on December 6, 2012. Respondent and/or Registrar has not indicated that the aforesaid letter is not comprehensible and should be resent in the Chinese language.
(c) The contents of the current website resolved by the disputed domain name are completely in English language (Annex 6 to the Complaint).
(d) In the recent UDRP decision, The Coca-Cola Company v. Private Registration, WIPO Case D2012-1414 where the disputed domain name was registered with identical Chinese Registrar Nanjing Imperiousus Technology Co. Ltd, the corresponding UDRP decision was issued in English language (Annex B of Complainant’s language request).
The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company from the USA, and Complainant will be spared the burden of working in Chinese as the language of the proceeding. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the website at the disputed domain name is in English and that the disputed domain name includes Latin characters “accutane” and English words “online” and “pharmacy” (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
On the record, the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> is registered in Latin characters and particularly in English language, rather than Chinese script; (b) the website at the disputed domain name is an English-based website and Respondent is apparently doing business in English through this website (Annex 6 to the Complaint); (c) the website appears to have been directed to users worldwide (particularly English speakers) rather than Chinese speakers; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding; (e) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ACCUTANE marks acquired through registration. The ACCUTANE marks have been registered worldwide including in the USA. Complainant has been known as a company, which engaged in research and development of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products, and a member of the Roche Group - one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups and having global operations in more than 100 countries.
The disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> comprises the ACCUTANE mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the words “online” and “pharmacy” to the mark ACCUTANE. This does not seem to eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
The mere addition of the descriptive terms “online” and “pharmacy” as suffixes to Complainant’s mark fails to distinguish to this Panel the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark. By contrast, it may increase the likelihood of confusion. One of common meanings of the term “pharmacy” is a store that sells pharmaceutical goods. Complainant is a leading company, which engaged in research and development of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. Internet users who visit ”www.accutaneonlinepharmacy.com” are likely to be confused and may falsely believe that “www.accutaneonlinepharmacy.com” is an online shop operated by Complainant for selling Accutane branded products. Thus, the Panel finds that the additions are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ACCUTANE marks.
Complainant has rights in the ACCUTANE marks globally (since at least 1979), including registration in the USA (since at least 1973) (see Annexes 3 and 4 to the Complaint) which long precedes Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (November 15, 2012).
According to Complainant, ACCUTANE is a well-known international brand, and it designates a dermatological preparation in the form of a product indicated for the treatment and prevention of acne. The ACCUTANE mark was extensively promoted for many years, and the sales of the Accutane product in the USA have exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars.
Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of Accutane branded products. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the word “accutane” in its business operation or the use of the ACCUTANE marks and design on its website (without disclaimer or other clarifying details). There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ACCUTANE marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ACCUTANE marks.
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> on November 15, 2012. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCUTANE marks.
(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, according to the information provided by Complainant, Respondent was in actuality advertising, offering and selling purported Accutane and other products at or through the website resolved by the disputed domain name <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> (Annex 6 to the Complaint).
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ACCUTANE marks with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its ACCUTANE marks internationally, including registration in the USA (since at least 1973). Moreover, the website at the disputed domain name advertises for sale various purported Accutane products. Respondent would likely not have advertised products purporting to be Accutane products on the website if it was unaware of Complainant’s reputation. In the other words, it is not conceivable to the Panel that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark right at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the ACCUTANE mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to formally respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. (See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787). Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s Accutane branded products.
Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using a confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites” offering purportedly Complainant’s Accutane branded products and services without authorization. Complainant claimed that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for “commercial gain” and with the purpose of capitalizing on the fame of Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE.
Given the widespread reputation of the ACCUTANE marks (as well as the content on the website at the disputed domain name mentioned above), the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name is resolved (see Annex 6 to the Complaint). In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the ACCUTANE marks. Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’s relationship to Complainant is made on the homepage of the disputed domain name, potential Internet users are led to believe that the website at “www.accutaneonlinepharmacy.com” is either Complainant’s sites or the sites of official authorized agents of Complainant, which it is not. Moreover, Respondent has not responded formally to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was used by Respondent in bad faith.
For all 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 <accutaneonlinepharmacy.com> be transferred to Complainant.

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