Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-1898
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:03:08+00:00

Document:
Complainant is Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. f/k/a Merck & Co., Inc. of Rahway, New Jersey, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America.
Respondent is Zhangxianqiong of BaZhong, SiChuan, China.
The disputed domain names <merck-sun.com>, <mercksun.com>, <sun-merck.com>, <sunmerck.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 2, 2011. On November 2, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On November 3, 2011, Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On November 3, 2011, the Center transmitted an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceedings. On November 4, 2011, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceedings. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceedings 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 November 9, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 29, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 30, 2011.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 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.
Complainant, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. f/k/a Merck & Co., Inc. is a company incorporated in Rahway, New Jersey, United States of America. It is one of world largest pharmaceutical companies and has over 100,000 employees worldwide.
Complainant is the registered owner of numerous trademarks consisting or including the word “Merck” (MERCK Marks) throughout the world, including 15 trademark registrations in the U.S. (see Exhibit 4 to the Complaint) and approximately 400 trademark registrations incorporating the MERCK Marks in other countries (Exhibit 5 to the Complaint).
The MERCK Marks (e.g. the word mark MERCK was registered in the U.S. on February 15, 1916) was registered long before the registration of the Domain Names (2011). Complainant has also registered over 700 top-level and country code domain names incorporating the MERCK Marks, such as <merck.com>, <merck.biz> and <merck.us> (Exhibit 6 to the Complaint).
Respondent registered the Domain Names <merck-sun.com>, <mercksun.com>, <sun-merck.com>, <sunmerck.com> on April 11, 2011, which is long after Complainant operated websites with URL which contain the MERCK Marks (i.e. <merck.com> was registered on December 9, 19921 ).
MERCK is a well-known and famous brand for pharmaceutical products.
The four Domain Names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous MERCK Marks. The only difference is that each of the Domain Name adds the word “sun” and in two cases a dash.
The word “sun” is a reference to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, the Company with which Complainant announced the creation of a joint venture in the same month that Respondent registered the Domain Names. The word “sun” is therefore descriptive of that joint venture.
The addition of the “.com” gTLD does not remove the confusing similarity between the Domain Names and MERCK Marks.
Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names.
Respondent has been granted no license or other rights to use Complainant’s MERCK Marks as part of any domain name or for any other purpose. Complainant is in no way associated or affiliated with Respondent.
Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Names, and is not using any of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent currently uses the Domain Names as landing pages stating that “This domain is for sale” and provide contact information for potential buyers interested in purchasing the Domain Names. (See Exhibit 7 to the Complaint).
Bad faith is found when “it appears more likely than not from the evidence offered by Complainant that Respondent has registered the domain name in a deliberate attempt to attract users to its planned website for commercial gain due to confusion with Complainant’s mark”. This is exactly the case here.
The use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark, in order to drive traffic to a website and generate revenue, is evidence of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. This is true whether these efforts consist of an attempt to capitalize on initial interest confusion.
The unauthorized use of Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of selling the Domain Names constitutes bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy. This is a classic case of initial-interest confusion.
The registration of a domain name incorporating a widely recognized mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration. Respondent’s registration of the Domain Names is prima facie evidence of such bad faith.
Respondent has no authorization from Complainant to use Complainant’s famous MERCK Marks.
Respondent has had years of constructive notice of Complainant’s registered trademarks, under U.S. Law 15 U.S.C. S1072.
(a) As in the cited cases, the majority of the content featured on Respondent’s websites is in the English language. Respondent’s websites also include English language copyright notices. (See Exhibit 7 to the Complaint).
(b) Respondent has also demonstrated its fluency in English through its English language communication to Complainant. (See Exhibit A to the Language Request). Respondent took it upon himself to contact Complainant and knew full well to initiate such contact in English.
(c) It is apparent from the fluent English displayed on Respondent’s websites and in Respondent’s e-mail communication that Respondent is sufficiently capable of communicating in English. Further, Respondent was adequately familiar with English to target a U.S.-based company and register the four Domain Names, each of which includes MERCK Marks in its entirety.
(d) Complainant is not in a position to participate in these proceedings in Chinese without a great deal of additional expense, burden and delay should translation be required. Given the circumstances of this proceeding, the balance of hardship lies in favor of Complainant.
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”) further states: “in certain situations, where Respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the WIPO Centre as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement”. (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 4.3; see also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).
The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company incorporated in the U.A., and Complainant will be spared the burden of dealing with Chinese as the language of the proceeding. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the Domain Names include English word “sun” (Expoconsult B.V. trading as CMP Information v. Roc Guan, WIPO Case No. D2008-1600; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).
On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds that persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent may have sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the Domain Names <merck-sun.com>, <mercksun.com>, <sun-merck.com>, <sunmerck.com> are registered in Latin characters and particularly in English language, rather than Chinese script; (b) English has been displayed on Respondent’s websites (See Exhibit 7 to the Complaint) and in Respondent’s e-mail communication that Respondent is sufficiently capable of communicating in English. (See Exhibit A to the Language Request); (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 MERCK Marks acquired through registration. The MERCK Marks have been registered worldwide including China (registration in China since December 1988; See Exhibit 7 to the Complaint) and it has a widespread reputation in pharmaceutical industry worldwide.
The Domain Names <merck-sun.com>, <mercksun.com>, <sun-merck.com>, <sunmerck.com> comprise the MERCK Marks in its entirety. The Domain Names <merck-sun.com> and <sun-merck.com> only differs from the MERCK Marks by the addition of “-” and the word “sun”. The Domain Names <mercksun.com> and <sunmerck.com> only differs from the MERCK Mark by the addition of the English word “sun”. The Panel finds that these do not eliminate the similarity between Complainant’s registered MERCK Marks and the Domain Names.
Mere addition of the descriptive term “sun” or a dash to Complainant’s MERCK Marks fails to distinguish. Thus, the Panel finds that the additions are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the MERCK Marks in which Complainant has rights.
(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; see also WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).
Complainant has rights in the MERCK Marks throughout the world, including 15 trademark registrations in the US (since 1916; see Exhibit 4 to the Complaint) and approximately 400 trademark registrations in other countries (Exhibit 5 to the Complaint). Complainant has also registered over 700 top-level and country code domain names incorporating the MERCK Marks (Exhibit 6 to the Complaint). According to the information provided by Complainant, as one of world largest pharmaceutical companies, it has over 100,000 employees worldwide.
Moreover, according to Complainant, Respondent is not an authorized dealers of MERCK-branded products. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names 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; and Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the Domain Names. The four Domain Names were all registered on April 11, 2011, which are long after Complainant operated websites with URL which contain the MERCK marks (e.g. <merck.com> was registered on December 9, 1992.2 The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERCK Marks.
The Panel finds that Respondents have failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
(iv) by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or locations or products.
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the MERCK Marks with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its MERCK Marks throughout the world (in the U.S. since 1916), including China (since 1988). Based on the information provided by Complainant, as one of world largest pharmaceutical companies, it has over 100,000 employees worldwide. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the Domain Names (in March 2011). The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Names are not one that one 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).
Thus, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s MERCK Marks.
Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using the confusingly similar Domain Names, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’ websites”. Complainant claimed that Respondent currently uses the Domain Names as landing pages stating that “This domain is for sale” and provide contact information for potential buyers interested in purchasing the Domain Names. (See Exhibit 7 to the Complaint).
Given the widespread reputation of the MERCK Marks, the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the Domain Names have a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites to which the Domain Names are resolved. In other words, Respondent has through the use of the confusingly similar Domain Names created a likelihood of confusion with the MERCK Marks. Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’ relationship to Complainant is made on the homepages of the Domain Names, potential partners and end users are led to believe that the Domain Names are either Complainant’s sites or the sites of official authorized partners of Complainant, which they are not. Moreover, Respondent did not respond formally to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the Domain Names were used by Respondent in bad faith.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use Domain Names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known MERCK Marks, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the Domain Names and the conduct of Respondent as far as the websites to which the Domain Names resolve are indicative of registration and use of the Domain Names 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 Domain Names <merck-sun.com>, <mercksun.com>, <sun-merck.com>, <sunmerck.com> be transferred to Complainant.

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