Eli Lilly and Company v. Denisov Denis / RDN.name
Claim Number: FA1511001649425
Complainant is Eli Lilly and Company (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie A. Gumm of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Denisov Denis / RDN.name (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The at-issue domain names are listed below with respect to each corresponding registrar (9 total):
Todaynic.com, Inc.: <achatcialisgenerique10mg.net>, <achetercialis40mg.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico1.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico20mg.net>, <acquistare-cialis-senzaricetta.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <acquistocialisgenericomg.net>, <cheapcialisgeneric20mg.net>, <cialisachetergenerique.net>, <cialisacquistaregenerico.net>, <cialisacquistogenerico.net>, <cialis-compresse.net>, <cialisenlignefr.net>, <cialis-espana2013.net>, <cialis-farmacia.net>, <cialisgeneriquefr.net>, <cialis-generique-france.net>, <cialis-pastilla.net>, <cialis-pharmacie.net>, <cialis-pharmaciefr.net>, <cialis-pillen.net>, <comprar-cialis-farmacia.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico20mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes1.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericomg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.net>, <comprarcialissinreceta.net>, <comprarecialisgenerico40mg.net>, <genericcialisnoprescription.net>, <kaufen-cialis-generika.net>, <kaufencialisgenerika40mg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikamg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikaonline.net>, <pharmacie-cialis.net>, <preise-cialis-generika.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <prezzocialisitalia.net>, <prixcialisgenerique1.net>;
Own Identity, Inc.: <achatcialisgenerique20mg.net>;
Above.com Pty Ltd.: <comprarcialisgenericobarato.net>, <commandercialisenligne.net>, <cialis-achat.net>, <prix-cialis-generique.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico20mg.net>, <comprar-cialis-es.net>, <acheter-cialis-pascher.net>, <comprargenericocialisespana.net>, <achat-cialis-pascher.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico.net>;
Regtime Ltd.: <achetercialisgeneriquesansordonnance.net>, <acquistare-cialis-generico.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikade.net>;
Media Elite Holdings Limited: <achatcialisgeneriquepascher.com>, <acquistarecialisgenericoitalia.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.com>;
AFRIREGISTER S.A.: <buycheapgenericcialisonlineusa.com>, <cialis4u.com>, <cialisfrance.com>, <potenzmittel-cialis.com>, <viagracialisde.com>, <wo-cialis-bestellen.com>;
Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz: <cialis-generika-bestellen.com>, <cialisgenerique-en-ligne.com>, <cialis-generiques-france.com>;
Web4Africa Inc.: <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.com>, <prezzocialisgenericoonline.com>; and
Alpnames Limited: <comprarcialisgenericoespana10mg.net>, <prix-cialis-france.net>.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 23, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 23, 2015.
On November 24, 2015 Regtime Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <achetercialisgeneriquesansordonnance.net>, <acquistare-cialis-generico.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikade.net> domain names are registered with Regtime Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Regtime Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Regtime Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 24, 2015 AFRIREGISTER S.A. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <buycheapgenericcialisonlineusa.com>, <cialis4u.com>, <cialisfrance.com>, <potenzmittel-cialis.com>, <viagracialisde.com>, <wo-cialis-bestellen.com> domain names are registered with AFRIREGISTER S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. AFRIREGISTER S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the AFRIREGISTER S.A. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On November 25, 2015 Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <comprarcialisgenericobarato.net>, <commandercialisenligne.net>, <cialis-achat.net>, <prix-cialis-generique.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico20mg.net>, <comprar-cialis-es.net>, <acheter-cialis-pascher.net>, <comprargenericocialisespana.net>, <achat-cialis-pascher.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico.net> domain names are registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On November 25, 2015 Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <achatcialisgeneriquepascher.com>, <acquistarecialisgenericoitalia.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.com> domain names are registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On November 25, 2015 Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cialis-generika-bestellen.com>, <cialisgenerique-en-ligne.com>, <cialis-generiques-france.com> domain names are registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On November 30, 2015 and December 4, 2015, Alpnames Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <comprarcialisgenericoespana10mg.net>, <prix-cialis-france.net> domain names are registered with Alpnames Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alpnames Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alpnames Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
After numerous requests, the Registrar, Todaynic.com, Inc., has not confirmed to the Forum that the <achatcialisgenerique10mg.net>, <achetercialis40mg.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico1.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico20mg.net>, <acquistare-cialis-senzaricetta.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <acquistocialisgenericomg.net>, <cheapcialisgeneric20mg.net>, <cialisachetergenerique.net>, <cialisacquistaregenerico.net>, <cialisacquistogenerico.net>, <cialis-compresse.net>, <cialisenlignefr.net>, <cialis-espana2013.net>, <cialis-farmacia.net>, <cialisgeneriquefr.net>, <cialis-generique-france.net>, <cialis-pastilla.net>, <cialis-pharmacie.net>, <cialis-pharmaciefr.net>, <cialis-pillen.net>, <comprar-cialis-farmacia.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico20mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes1.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericomg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.net>, <comprarcialissinreceta.net>, <comprarecialisgenerico40mg.net>, <genericcialisnoprescription.net>, <kaufen-cialis-generika.net>, <kaufencialisgenerika40mg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikamg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikaonline.net>, <pharmacie-cialis.net>, <preise-cialis-generika.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <prezzocialisitalia.net>, and <prixcialisgenerique1.net> domain names are registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. or Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Registrar’s non-compliance has been reported to ICANN as of December 1, 2015. The FORUM’s standing instructions are to proceed with this dispute.
After numerous requests, the Registrar, Own Identity, Inc., has not confirmed to the Forum that the <achatcialisgenerique20mg.net> domain name is registered with Own Identity, Inc. or Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar’s non-compliance has been reported to ICANN as of December 1, 2015. The FORUM’s standing instructions are to proceed with this dispute.
After numerous requests, the Registrar, Web4Africa Inc., has not confirmed to the Forum that the <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.com> and <prezzocialisgenericoonline.com> domain names are registered with Web4Africa Inc. or Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Registrar’s non-compliance has been reported to ICANN as of December 1, 2015. The FORUM’s standing instructions are to proceed with this dispute.
On December 11, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cialis-pharmacie.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericoespana10mg.net, postmaster@achat-cialis-pascher.net, postmaster@acheter-cialis-pascher.net, postmaster@cialis-achat.net, postmaster@commandercialisenligne.net, postmaster@comprar-cialis-es.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericobarato.net, postmaster@comprargenericocialisespana.net, postmaster@prix-cialis-generique.net, postmaster@prezzocialisgenerico.net, postmaster@acquistocialisgenerico20mg.net, postmaster@prix-cialis-france.net, postmaster@acquistare-cialis-generico.net, postmaster@kaufencialisgenerikade.net, postmaster@achetercialisgeneriquesansordonnance.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.com, postmaster@achatcialisgeneriquepascher.com, postmaster@acquistarecialisgenericoitalia.net, postmaster@buycheapgenericcialisonlineusa.com, postmaster@cialis-generika-bestellen.com, postmaster@cialis-generiques-france.com, postmaster@cialis4u.com, postmaster@cialisfrance.com, postmaster@cialisgenerique-en-ligne.com, postmaster@potenzmittel-cialis.com, postmaster@viagracialisde.com, postmaster@wo-cialis-bestellen.com, postmaster@achatcialisgenerique10mg.net, postmaster@achetercialis40mg.net, postmaster@acquistarecialisgenerico20mg.net, postmaster@cialis-compresse.net, postmaster@cialis-espana2013.net, postmaster@cialis-farmacia.net, postmaster@cialisacquistaregenerico.net, postmaster@cialisacquistogenerico.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenerico10mg.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenerico20mg.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericoes1.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericoes10mg.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericomg.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.net, postmaster@prixcialisgenerique1.net, postmaster@cialis-pillen.net, postmaster@cialisachetergenerique.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenerico40mg.net, postmaster@comprarcialissinreceta.net, postmaster@kaufen-cialis-generika.net, postmaster@kaufencialisgenerika40mg.net, postmaster@kaufencialisgenerikamg.net, postmaster@kaufencialisgenerikaonline.net, postmaster@preise-cialis-generika.net, postmaster@acquistare-cialis-senzaricetta.net, postmaster@acquistarecialisgenerico1.net, postmaster@acquistocialisgenerico10mg.net, postmaster@acquistocialisgenericomg.net, postmaster@cheapcialisgeneric20mg.net, postmaster@cialis-generique-france.net, postmaster@cialis-pharmaciefr.net, postmaster@cialisenlignefr.net, postmaster@cialisgeneriquefr.net, postmaster@comprar-cialis-farmacia.net, postmaster@comprarecialisgenerico40mg.net, postmaster@genericcialisnoprescription.net, postmaster@pharmacie-cialis.net, postmaster@prezzocialisgenerico10mg.net, postmaster@prezzocialisitalia.net, postmaster@achatcialisgenerique20mg.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenerico40mg.com, postmaster@prezzocialisgenericoonline.com, and postmaster@cialis-pastilla.net. Also on December 11, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 8, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
[a.] The Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
(1) Complainant's use and registration of the CIALIS trademark pre-dates Respondents’ registration of the Domain Names.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations throughout the world for its CIALIS mark and Complainant's rights in the CIALIS mark date back to as early as 1999. In 2004, approximately $39 million was spent to market and sell CIALIS brand product worldwide, U.S. sales of the CIALIS brand product totaled more than $206 million, and worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product were in excess of $550 million. Over the years, sales of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product have steadily and significantly increased. In 2013, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased to $2.159 billion. Most recently, for the full year 2014, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased 6% to $2.291 billion, with sales in the United States at $1.040 billion and sales outside of the United States at $1.251 billion. For these reasons, Complainant believes that it is reasonable to infer that the CIALIS trademark is well-known throughout the world.
Because the Respondents registered the Domain Names between 2012 and 2015, Complainant's rights in the CIALIS trademark predate Respondents’ registration dates, and Complainant has both senior and exclusive rights in the CIALIS mark. Complainant also has an Internet presence, primarily through the website accessed by the domain name <cialis.com>, that it uses to advertise and provide information regarding its pharmaceutical product. The <cialis.com> domain name was registered by Complainant's predecessor-in-interest on August 10, 1999. Complainant has used this domain name to identify a website since at least as early as June, 2001.
(2) The CIALIS mark is distinctive.
Complainant submits and prior Panels have agreed that the CIALIS mark is an invented word that has a high degree of individuality, inherent distinctiveness and no common colloquial use. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Clarkepharma Co., D2007-0447 (WIPO, May 25, 2007). An invented word which has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness is deemed to be a highly distinctive mark. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Telsra/Telecomunicaciones Serafin Rodriguez y Asociados, D2003-0247 (WIPO, July 21, 2003) (determined that since the mark TELSTRA is an invented word and given its nature, widespread advertisement and exposure to consumers worldwide, the mark is highly distinctive). A domain name which differs very slightly from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar where that trademark is highly distinctive. See Credit Suisse Group v. VPDD UBGM ltd, D2007-0867 (WIPO, September 10, 2007).
(3) The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark.
The Domain Names are confusing similar to Complainant’s CIALIS mark. The addition of generic or descriptive words such as "buy," "cheap," and "generic," to Complainant's highly distinctive CIALIS trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Prior Forum Panels have noted that, "the mere addition of a generic or descriptive abbreviation to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of respondent's domain name." Lilly ICOS LLC v. Joe Pestrak, FA 0504000464558 (NAF, May 31, 2005). As a result, the addition of generic or descriptive words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Andrew Riegel, FA0609000788279 (NAF, October 18, 2006) (finding the addition of the generic term "buy" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not overcome the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the CIALIS mark); Lilly ICOS LLC v. Jay Kim, D2004-0891 (WIPO, January 28, 2005) (finding the addition of the generic word "generic" and the generic letter "a" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark); and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (determining that the addition of the words "drug", "online", "buying" and "guide" to Complainant's registered CIALIS trademark did not eliminate the confusing similarity between the CIALIS mark and the <cialis-drug-online-buying-guide.com> domain name because the additional words did not distinguish the owner of the disputed name from Complainant). In the present case, Respondents have merely added generic and/or descriptive words and phrases to the CIALIS mark in the Domain Names. Respondents’ addition of these words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark.
Additionally, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name to render the domain name confusingly similar. EAuto v. Triple S. Auto Parts, D2000-0047 (WIPO, March 24, 2000). In the case at hand, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (finding that the disputed domain name <cialis-drug-online-buying-guide.com> was confusingly similar to the CIALIS trademark because it incorporated the distinctive CIALIS mark in its entirety) (Annex 3, N). With the exception of the generic and/or descriptive words and phrases, the Domain Names consist of Complainant's CIALIS mark in its entirety. Thus, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's CIALIS trademark.
[b.] The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
(1) Respondents are not using the Domain Names for a legitimate business purpose.
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. There is no evidence that the Respondents have been commonly known by the term "CIALIS" or any of the corresponding Domain Names. All of the active websites associated with the Domain Names resolve to the same networks which promote and allegedly sell “Generic” CIALIS brand product, which have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") or any other health authority and are unlawful pharmaceutical products. To date, there is no "generic" version of CIALIS brand product approved by the FDA or any other health authority. As a result, any "generic" CIALIS product is an unlawful, counterfeit pharmaceutical product.
By using the mark CIALIS in the Domain Names, the Respondents are luring consumers in search of Complainant's CIALIS brand product to websites that promote "generic" and brand name pharmaceutical products, including products which are arguably competitive with Complainant's CIALIS product. Such use does not demonstrate a legitimate right or interest in the Domain Names. See Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain names to redirect to websites advertising and promoting competing products is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)) (Annex 3, P) and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Alexey Stoun, D2006-1170 (WIPO, November 16, 2006) (finding that the registrant did not have any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain <greatcialis.com> because registrant was using the mark CIALIS in the domain at issue to direct consumers in search of CIALIS brand product to a website which advertised "generic" CIALIS product as well as competitive products).
While approximately 10 of the websites associated with the Domain Names are not currently active, it is apparent from the Respondents’ use of the “active” Domain Names that all of the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Prior panels have held that even passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use and registration. In Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO, February 18, 2000), WIPO recognized that a respondent's inaction (e.g. passive holding) could represent bad faith use of a domain name under certain circumstances. The decision noted that the determination as to what circumstances constituted "certain circumstances" worthy of a bad faith determination would be fact specific to each case. In Telstra, some of the particular circumstances leading to a finding of bad faith included: (1) complainant's mark had a strong reputation and was widely known; (2) respondent failed to show any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name; and (3) it was impossible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or trademark infringement. Such factors are present in the case at hand.
As set forth in detail above, Complainant's CIALIS mark has a strong reputation and is widely known throughout the world. In addition, Respondents have no apparent rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. As described above, Respondents are using Complainant's CIALIS trademark in other domain names to attract Internet consumers to its websites, which are online pharmacies advertising and selling counterfeit versions of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product in violation of Complainant’s intellectual property rights and various national laws concerning the sale of pharmaceuticals. With respect to the few “inactive” Domain Names, there is no plausible use of the associated websites by Respondents that would not be illegitimate. Respondents’ registration of multiple domain names which incorporate Complainant's distinctive CIALIS mark further demonstrates Respondents’ improper conduct. In light of these factors, Respondents' "passive holding" of some of the Domain Names amounts to use in bad faith.
Moreover, as previous Panels have held, "rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant." See Eli Lilly and Company v. media/broadcasting, Lee Shung, D2010-1079 (WIPO, September 14, 2010) (determining that the respondent did not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain <36cialis.com> where the respondent sold unauthorized or counterfeit products of the complainant). Respondents clearly chose the Domain Names in order to create an impression of association with Complainant and Complainant's well-known CIALIS mark. In light of these factors, it is apparent from the websites associated with the Domain Names that the Respondents are attempting to capitalize on the valuable reputation and goodwill of the CIALIS mark to direct Internet users to its websites.
(2) Respondents are not authorized by Complainant to use the CIALIS trademark.
Complainant has not given Respondents permission, authorization, consent or license to use its CIALIS mark. Despite this fact, however, the Domain Names resolve to websites enabling the Respondents to benefit from the strength of Complainant's CIALIS mark and the reputation and goodwill of the product with which the mark is associated.
[c.] The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Complainant has a June 17, 1999 constructive use date of the CIALIS trademark based upon its U.S. trademark rights. Media coverage of the CIALIS brand product is dated as early as 2001. Complainant has extensively marketed and advertised its pharmaceutical product using the CIALIS trademark. Therefore, because it is reasonable to infer that the CIALIS trademark is well-known, it is highly likely that the Respondents knew of Complainant's CIALIS mark at the time of registering over 70 confusingly similar Domain Names.
According to Policy ¶4(b)(ii), evidence of bad faith registration and use is shown when a respondent has registered a domain name in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. See Eli Lilly and Company v. Darren K. Headley et al., D2103-1303 (WIPO, September 4, 2013) (registering 10 domain names incorporating the CIALIS mark demonstrated that the respondent registered and was using the disputed domain names in bad faith per paragraph 4(b)(ii)). Moreover, prior Forum Panels found that the registration of multiple domains incorporating the Complainant’s CIALIS mark revealed bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(ii). See Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (Annex 3, P) and Eli Lilly and Company v. Grace Beaumont et. al, FA1504001615093 (NAF, June 5, 2015). In this case, the Respondents have registered over 70 domains which incorporate the Complainant's CIALIS mark.
Moreover, in order to establish a pattern of conduct, one need not demonstrate an impact against multiple trademark owners. Instead, while a pattern of conduct typically involves multiple domain names directed against multiple complainants, it may involve multiple domain names directed against a single complainant. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls, D2001-0046 (WIPO, March 20, 2001) (finding that fifteen domain names that involved Telstra's mark and a series of services, products, geographical descriptors, or generic words obviously involves a pattern of conduct directed against Telstra, stopping it from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names). Such is the case here, where the Respondents registered over 70 Domain Names, all of which incorporate the Complainant's well-known and distinctive CIALIS mark.
Further, promoting competing products under another’s mark disrupts a trademark owner’s business and reveals bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011). In this case, several of the websites associated with the Domain Names promote illegal, counterfeit pharmaceutical products, as well as competing products which demonstrates bad faith use and registration pursuant to the Policy.
Additionally, the Respondents are likely using Complainant's CIALIS mark in the Domain Names to drive Internet traffic to its websites and likely profiting from the purchase of any products from the associated online pharmacy. Prior NAF Panels have noted that such activities create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the resolving websites, from which a respondent presumably profits and demonstrates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (Annex 3, P). Moreover, prior NAF Panels have found, “that the offer of counterfeit and competing products constitutes bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).” See Eli Lilly and Company v. Grace Beaumont et. al, FA1504001615093 (NAF, June 5, 2015).
One may argue that the Respondents’ conduct with respect to 10 of the Domain Names that currently don’t have active websites cannot be said to come squarely within any of the examples of bad faith registration and use set out in ¶4(b) of the Policy. However, the examples in ¶4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO, February 18, 2000) (Annex 3, R). As discussed in detail above, the Telstra decision established that "inaction" can constitute bad faith use, and the decision has since been cited for that proposition and followed by many subsequent Panels. See Staples, Inc. v. Ryan Conrad, D2003-0713 (WIPO, October 27, 2003) (Annex 3, V). As a result, Respondents' passive and misleading use of 10 of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith registration and use.
"It is further important to state that the mere holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark belonging to someone else, prevents the holder of the said mark to be present on the Internet under a domain name that reflects the trademark, which in itself can be considered disrupting to his business." See Healthy Back LLC v. Ivo Somoza, D2003-0276 (WIPO, June 3, 2003). Respondents' registration and misleading use of the Domain Names is disrupting to Complainant's business.
Finally, Respondents’ use of Complainant's CIALIS mark in the Domain Names is potentially harmful to the health of many unsuspecting consumers who may purchase unlawfully sold pharmaceutical products promoted through the websites associated with the Domain Names under the mistaken impression that they are dealing with Complainant and, therefore, are receiving information on safe and effective drugs approved by the FDA or other health authorities around the world. As discussed above, “Generic” CIALIS brand product has neither been developed by the Complainant nor approved by the FDA or any other health authority. Complainant's CIALIS brand product is only available on a physician's prescription and is manufactured, labeled, and sold in strict compliance with the FDA and other health authority laws and regulations. A prior panel has noted that the obvious danger of consumers being afforded inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information about medical products may further demonstrate a Respondent's bad faith. See Eli Lilly and Company v. Ryma Nynyore/Domain Directors Pty. Ltd., D2011-0478 (WIPO, April 29, 2011). In light of all of these factors, it is apparent that the Respondents have clearly registered and are using the Domain Names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(3) the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
Complainant has requested these proceedings be consolidated. For the purposes of clarity and to insure the Panel’s ruling is understandable to readers who are not parties, Complaint’s request will be set out in full:
“Request to Consolidate
Complainant hereby requests permission to proceed against multiple respondents in this single administrative proceeding pursuant to ¶3(c) or 10(e) of the UDRP Rules. The consolidation of multiple registrants as respondents in a single administrative proceeding is appropriate under ¶3(c) or 10(e) of the UDRP Rules provided the complainant can demonstrate that the disputed domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and the Panel, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, determines that consolidation would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to all parties. See Eli Lilly and Company v. Darren K. Headley et al., D2013-1303 (WIPO, Sept. 3, 2013) (finding “[t]here is significant precedent supporting consideration for such consolidation when the disputed domain names are determined to be under common control) (citing Guccio Gucci S.p.A v. Andrea Hubner et al., D2012-2212 (WIPO, Feb. 8, 2013) (“UDRP jurisprudence suggests consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, even where differently named domain name registrants are involved, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names or the websites to which the domain names resolve”); and Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson et al., D2010-0281 (WIPO, May 18, 2010); see also HLT Domestic IP LLC v. Boris Chevkov / Macky Tong, Claim No. FA1405001558971 (NAF, June 23, 2014) (“Previous Panels have also found multiple respondents to be commonly controlled where the content of their websites were substantially identical and referred Internet visitors to a common homepage.”)
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for establishing that the disputed domain names are subject to common control is a preponderance of the evidence. See Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha v. L. Collins Travis, C. Turner Jose, et al., D2013-0994 (WIPO, Aug. 6, 2013) (“In this instance, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established more likely than not that the disputed domain names are subject to common ownership or control…”); and Lancôme Parfums Et Beaut Et Compagnie v. You Ge, Jean Buding, Kang Tianhuan, Zongkaili, Leigeng, D2013-1559 (WIPO, Nov. 20, 2013) (“…the Panel infers that on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain names are all controlled or under the common ownership of the same person or entity…”). Where consolidation will permit multiple domain name disputes arising from a common nucleus of facts and involving common legal issues to be heard and resolved in a single administrative proceeding, the shared interests of the parties are promoted in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, and generally furthers the fundamental objectives of the Policy. All reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the complaint may be accepted as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (Annex 3, F); and Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (NAF, July 31, 2000).
Facts in Support of Consolidation
According to LegitScript, a company providing assistance with this proceeding, the Domain Names have been identified as under control of a rogue online pharmacy operator that uses false contact information to register domains. The Domain Names resolve to websites that advertise and sell generic versions of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product and the sites are part of the same networks, “Rx-Partners,” “Pharmcash” and “Pharmatheke”.[1] All of the Domain Names are hosted on the same IP address (i.e., 37.187.146.46). All of the Domain Names that are registered using a name other than Denisov Denis, all link to Denisov Denis via either recent historical WhOIS information or Denisov Denis’ email colman662@gmail.com. Further, each “unique” registrant name uses the email address – ss@ss.ru – at least once in the WHOIS information for each Domain Name. Other commonalities include, of course, that the Domain Names contain the CIALIS trademark and all of the Domain Names were registered between November 2012 through October 2015.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Domain Names are likely under common control, notwithstanding that the true identity of the Respondents may be a joint criminal enterprise acting together in concert, rather than a single individual. Complainant respectfully submits that this satisfies the preponderance of the evidence standard required for consolidation of the Domain Names into a single proceeding.”
This Panel generally agrees with Complainant’s claims. Respondent has done nothing to dispute them. Complainant has met it burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The entities which control the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” All domains are under control of a single rogue online pharmacy operator, which utilizes false contact information to register domains. All domain names in dispute resolve to websites which advertise and sell generic versions of Complainant’s products. All domain names in dispute are hosted on the same IP address. All domain names in dispute are linked in one way or another to “Denisov Denis.” Each “unique” registrant name uses the email address ss@ss.ru. All disputed domains contain the CIALIS mark in its entirety.
Taken in its entirely, this is adequate evidence the listed entities are jointly controlled. Pursuant to Forum Supplemental Rule 4(c), this Panel also finds all of the domain names are commonly owned. The named Respondent in this Proceeding shall be Denisov Denis.
Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings
Complainant requests this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). Complainant makes this request even though some of the Registration Agreements are in Russian (most of them are in English). It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would evince a familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which evinces an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) evincing Respondent’s understanding of the English language in the Registration Agreements. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). In this case, a number of the commonly controlled domain names’ websites are in the English language.
The Panel shall also weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Russian language agreements, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”).
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been shown by the Complainant that Respondent is sufficiently conversant in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides the Proceeding should be in English. There is nothing to be gained by either translating the documents into Russian or by having a parallel set of proceedings.
The CIALIS mark is used by Complainant and was registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003) to identify its rights in a pharmaceutical product intended for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and benign prostatic hyperplasia. A complainant may prove its rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i) by proving a trademark registration with a governmental authority, such as the USPTO. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the CIALIS mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Respondent’s disputed domain names each incorporate the CIALIS mark fully and merely add generic/descriptive/geographic terms, as well as the generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) “.com,” or “.net.” Adding generic/descriptive/geographic terms do not adequately differentiate a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as “cancun” to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the <cheapticketscancun.com>, <cheapticketscancun.biz>, <cheapticketscancun.net>, and <cheapticketscancun.org> domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Furthermore, every domain name requires a TLD, whether it is a gTLD or a ccTLD. Such TLDs must be disregarded when doing a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. Respondent’s disputed domains are confusing similar to the CIALIS mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to register the CIALIS mark in any way. Because Respondent has submitted no additional evidence for the Panel’s consideration, the Panel finds there is no basis for finding Respondent is “commonly known by” the domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii) in light of the available WHOIS information. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name).
Complainant claims Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. All pages resolve to the same networks which promote and sell “Generic” CIALIS brand products. This is an unlawful sale of a counterfeit pharmaceutical product which has not been approved by the FDA. Marketing of illegal products does not create any rights or legitimate interests. As in Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006), the panel concluded that “the respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).” Such products also compete with Complainant even if they weren’t illegal, so Respondent has not demonstrated any Policy ¶4(c)(i) and (iii) rights. See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name); see also Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain names to redirect to websites advertising and promoting competing products is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Respondent’s resolving sites do not constitute a bona fide offering of a good or service per Policy ¶4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Further, Respondent has not accurately registered the disputed domain names under Respondent’s true name. This means the domain name registration in the commercial context does not give Respondent any rights because the Respondent has not publicity associated itself with the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Respondent has registered a record breaking 71 domain names which incorporate Complainant’s mark. Respondent clearly knew about Complainant’s mark and how Complainant was using it (especially since Respondent was marketing counterfeit products). This registration of 71 domain names clearly has not prevented Complainant from registering its mark in a domain name because Complainant owns <cialis.com>. This means Respondent has not demonstrated bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(ii). However, the list of examples under Policy ¶4(b) is not exhaustive. This Panel believes Respondent’s actions have been so egregious they constitute bad faith registration and use of the domain names. See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).").
Nearly all the disputed domain names purport to sell counterfeit/competing products of Complainant (a number of domain names are inactive), which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. v. David, FA 1138296 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2008) (concluding that the complainant’s business is disrupted by the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling counterfeit products); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”). Respondent has attempted to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
Respondent is presumably attempting to profit from Internet confusion about the CIALIS mark because it is recognized worldwide as Complainant’s product. Respondent is trying to create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation between Complainant and Respondent’s domain names, demonstrating Policy ¶4(b)(iv) bad faith. The panel in H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2009) found the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products created the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name, allowing the respondent to profit from that confusion. This constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). Similarly, this Respondent offered counterfeit products for sale to the general public. Such actions constitute bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).
Respondent fails to make use of a number of disputed domain names. While there is not requirement a domain name resolve to a website (because they can be used for other purposes), holding a domain name passively can indicate bad faith. See, e.g., Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use). This Panel finds bad faith for the inactively held domain names on those grounds under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent has not provided accurate WHOIS information when the 71 domain names were registered. In the commercial context, the failure to give accurate WHOIS information raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. For that reason alone, this Panel is comfortable in finding bad faith registration and use of each and every domain name.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cialis-pharmacie.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoespana10mg.net>, <achat-cialis-pascher.net>, <acheter-cialis-pascher.net>, <cialis-achat.net>, <commandercialisenligne.net>, <comprar-cialis-es.net>, <comprarcialisgenericobarato.net>, <comprargenericocialisespana.net>, <prix-cialis-generique.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico20mg.net>, <prix-cialis-france.net>, <acquistare-cialis-generico.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikade.net>, <achetercialisgeneriquesansordonnance.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.com>, <achatcialisgeneriquepascher.com>, <acquistarecialisgenericoitalia.net>, <buycheapgenericcialisonlineusa.com>, <cialis-generika-bestellen.com>, <cialis-generiques-france.com>, <cialis4u.com>, <cialisfrance.com>, <cialisgenerique-en-ligne.com>, <potenzmittel-cialis.com>, <viagracialisde.com>, <wo-cialis-bestellen.com>, <achatcialisgenerique10mg.net>, <achetercialis40mg.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico20mg.net>, <cialis-compresse.net>, <cialis-espana2013.net>, <cialis-farmacia.net>, <cialisacquistaregenerico.net>, <cialisacquistogenerico.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico20mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes1.net>, <comprarcialisgenericoes10mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericomg.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta.net>, <prixcialisgenerique1.net>, <cialis-pillen.net>, <cialisachetergenerique.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.net>, <comprarcialissinreceta.net>, <kaufen-cialis-generika.net>, <kaufencialisgenerika40mg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikamg.net>, <kaufencialisgenerikaonline.net>, <preise-cialis-generika.net>, <acquistare-cialis-senzaricetta.net>, <acquistarecialisgenerico1.net>, <acquistocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <acquistocialisgenericomg.net>, <cheapcialisgeneric20mg.net>, <cialis-generique-france.net>, <cialis-pharmaciefr.net>, <cialisenlignefr.net>, <cialisgeneriquefr.net>, <comprar-cialis-farmacia.net>, <comprarecialisgenerico40mg.net>, <genericcialisnoprescription.net>, <pharmacie-cialis.net>, <prezzocialisgenerico10mg.net>, <prezzocialisitalia.net>, <achatcialisgenerique20mg.net>, <comprarcialisgenerico40mg.com>, <prezzocialisgenericoonline.com>, and <cialis-pastilla.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, January 18, 2016
[1] Please note that Complainant has preserved web pages from each of the Domain Names; however, the file exceeds the size limitations set forth in the Supp. Rules. As a result, Complainant is submitting a representative sample of such web pages as Annexes 5 and 6 to this Amended Complaint. Upon request or approval from the Panel, Complainant will submit the complete file.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page