Eli Lilly and Company v. Stefan Hansmann / Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd
Claim Number: FA1602001661936
Complainant is Eli Lilly and Company (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie A. Gumm of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Indiana, United States. Respondent is Stefan Hansmann / Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <buy-canadacialis.com>, <cialis-withoutadoctorprescription.com>, <canadian-cialis-generic.net>, <cialis-cheapestno-prescription.net>, <cialis-onlinewithoutprescription.com>, <generic-buycialis1.net>, <genericcialis-buy1.com>, <onlineforsale-cialis.net>, <without-prescriptioncialiscanadian.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <comprarcialisespana.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta10mg.com>, <achatcialispascher.net>, <bestellencialisdeutschland.net>, <buycialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialis-overthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialisoverthe-counteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.com>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.net>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithouta-doctorprescription.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctors-prescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptioncanada.com>, <cialiswithoutdoctorprescriptions.net>, <freetrialcialis.com>, <cialisoverthecounterat-walmart.net>, <cialis-freesample.com>, <cialis20mg-tadalafil.com>, <cialis20mgdocror.com>, <cialisforsaledoctor.com>, <cialisfree-trialoffer.com>, <cialisluck.com>, <cialistrialsample.com>, <cialisusatadalafil.com>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.com>, <cialiswithouta-doctorsprescription.com>, <tadalafilcialis24.com>, <cialis-withoutdoctorprescription.com>, and <cialiswithoutadoctorprescriptions.com>, registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 22, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 22, 2016.
On March 5, 2016, Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <buy-canadacialis.com>, <cialis-withoutadoctorprescription.com>, <canadian-cialis-generic.net>, <cialis-cheapestno-prescription.net>, <cialis-onlinewithoutprescription.com>, <generic-buycialis1.net>, <genericcialis-buy1.com>, <onlineforsale-cialis.net>, <without-prescriptioncialiscanadian.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <comprarcialisespana.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta10mg.com>, <achatcialispascher.net>, <bestellencialisdeutschland.net>, <buycialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialis-overthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialisoverthe-counteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.com>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.net>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithouta-doctorprescription.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctors-prescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptioncanada.com>, <cialiswithoutdoctorprescriptions.net>, <freetrialcialis.com>, <cialisoverthecounterat-walmart.net>, <cialis-freesample.com>, <cialis20mg-tadalafil.com>, <cialis20mgdocror.com>, <cialisforsaledoctor.com>, <cialisfree-trialoffer.com>, <cialisluck.com>, <cialistrialsample.com>, <cialisusatadalafil.com>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.com>, <cialiswithouta-doctorsprescription.com>, <tadalafilcialis24.com>, <cialis-withoutdoctorprescription.com>, and <cialiswithoutadoctorprescriptions.com> domain names are registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. Respondent was the named registrant on the WHOIS record at the time of commencement. Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 10, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2016 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@buy-canadacialis.com, postmaster@cialis-withoutadoctorprescription.com, postmaster@canadian-cialis-generic.net, postmaster@cialis-cheapestno-prescription.net, postmaster@cialis-onlinewithoutprescription.com, postmaster@generic-buycialis1.net, postmaster@genericcialis-buy1.com, postmaster@onlineforsale-cialis.net, postmaster@without-prescriptioncialiscanadian.net, postmaster@cialis-withoutadoctorsprescriptions.com, postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptions.com, postmaster@comprarcialisespana.net, postmaster@comprarcialisgenericosinreceta10mg.com, postmaster@achatcialispascher.net, postmaster@bestellencialisdeutschland.net, postmaster@buycialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.com, postmaster@cialis-overthecounteratwalmart.net, postmaster@cialis-withoutadoctorsprescription.com, postmaster@cialisoverthe-counteratwalmart.net, postmaster@cialisoverthecounteratwalmart.net, postmaster@cialisoverthecounterwalmart.com, postmaster@cialisoverthecounterwalmart.net, postmaster@cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.net, postmaster@cialiswithouta-doctorprescription.com, postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctors-prescription.net, postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.net, postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptioncanada.com, postmaster@cialiswithoutdoctorprescriptions.net, postmaster@freetrialcialis.com, postmaster@cialisoverthecounterat-walmart.net, postmaster@cialis-freesample.com, postmaster@cialis20mg-tadalafil.com, postmaster@cialis20mgdocror.com, postmaster@cialisforsaledoctor.com, postmaster@cialisfree-trialoffer.com, postmaster@cialisluck.com, postmaster@cialistrialsample.com, postmaster@cialisusatadalafil.com, postmaster@cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.com, postmaster@cialiswithouta-doctorsprescription.com, postmaster@tadalafilcialis24.com, postmaster@cialis-withoutdoctorprescription.com, and postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctorprescriptions.com. Also on March 10, 2016, 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.
On March 5, March 10, and April 5, 2016, the Forum received correspondence from Respondent which was not a proper response to the Complaint. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 5, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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.
Complainant
Complainant uses the CIALIS mark to identify a pharmaceutical product. Complainant has registered the CIALIS mark with agencies similar to and including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003), which demonstrates rights in the mark. Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because they all include the mark in its entirety, while adding generic or descriptive words and the generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) “.net” and “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the domain names. Rather, the domain names resolve to websites that advertise and sell generic, counterfeit versions of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product and that these sites are part of the same on-line pharmacy networks. Moreover, approximately three of the domains resolve to inactive webpages.
Respondent is using the domain names in bad faith. Respondent has a history of past UDRP findings against it, and Respondent registered 43 domains that are the subject of the current proceeding. Respondent’s use of the websites to promote and sell competing, counterfeit products is a disruption of Complainant’s legitimate business purposes. Respondent has also attempted to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Fourth, at least three of Respondent’s domains resolve to inactive webpages, which demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, Respondent had at least constructive notice of the CIALIS mark and Complainant’s rights therein because of the marks’ fame, notoriety and multiple trademark registrations.
Respondent
Respondent did not submit a proper Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the domain names.
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 that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(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: Language of the Proceedings
Complainant requests that this administrative proceeding be in English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). 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 included in the Registration Agreement. 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). The Panel has also considered the relative time and expense in enforcing the English language agreement, 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 that persuasive uncontested evidence has been adduced by Complainant that Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
Complainant alleges that the domain names at issue 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 that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that all the domains were registered by either Stefan Hansmann or Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd., and that the WHOIS information indicates that Stefan Hansmann is an agent of Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. Complainant argues that because all of the domains are likely under the common control of Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. and its agents, the request to consolidate the multiple respondents into a single administrative proceeding should be granted.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same holder, and will proceed with the instant proceeding.
Complainant uses the CIALIS mark to identify a pharmaceutical product. Complainant claims to have registered the CIALIS mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003), arguing such registrations demonstrate rights in the mark, even where Respondent operates in a different country. Panels have found, under such circumstances, that a complainant’s valid USPTO registration is sufficient in establishing rights in a mark per Policy ¶4(a)(i) even where the respondent resides or operated in a different country. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds Complainant’s registrations with the USPTO are sufficient to establish its rights in the CIALIS mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because they all include the mark in its entirety, while adding generic or descriptive words and the gTLD “.net” or “.com.” Panels have found that the addition of generic or descriptive words to a registered mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Andrew Riegel, FA 0609000788279 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2006) (finding the addition to the generic term “buy” to Complainant’s CIALIS mark did not overcome the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the CIALIS mark); Am. Online, Inc. v. Karandish, FA 563833 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 2, 2005) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “talk” to a registered mark does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). In addition, panels have held that when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name. See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO Nov. 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). Past panels have held that the affixation of a gTLD such as “.net” or “.com” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”); see also Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor does it have permission to use the CIALIS mark. The publicly available WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain names lists “Stefan Hansmann / Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.” as the registrant of record. Respondent has not submitted a response in this proceeding to refute Complainant’s allegations. Therefore, in light of the available evidence, the Panel finds that there is no basis to find Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends that many of the domain names resolve to websites that advertise and sell generic, counterfeit versions of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product and that these sites are part of the same online pharmacy networks. Complainant states that approximately three of the domains resolve to inactive webpages. Past panels have held that a respondent’s use of a domain to advertise and sell products that compete directly with a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Past panels have also held that a respondent’s use of a domain to sell counterfeit versions of a complainant’s products is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2007) (finding no rights and legitimate interests when the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products in competition with the complainant’s business). Panels have held that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests where it fails to make any active use of a domain. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain names constitute neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent has a history of adverse UDRP findings. Complainant cites the following cases to support its argument: Radio Flyer Inc. v. Stegan Hansmann/Invertising FA 1503001610574 and ER Marks, Inc. and QVC v. Stefan Hansmann, FA 1104001381755. Panels have concluded that a history of adverse UDRP findings is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Complainant argues that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith pursuant to the Policy as it registered 43 domains that are the subject of the current proceeding. Past panels have determined that such behavior violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the domain names to promote and sell competing, counterfeit products serves as a disruption of Complainant’s legitimate business purposes pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Past panels have found that a respondent’s use of a domain to sell products and/or services that are in direct competition with a complainant’s business or that are counterfeit, constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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).”); see also Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1222544 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2008) (holding that the selling of counterfeit versions of a complainant’s products disrupted the complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain names is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its sites for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites. Past panels have held that a respondent’s use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business, or that are counterfeit, is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of its domain names is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant asserts that its trademark registrations for the CIALIS mark existed well before the registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark at the time the domains were registered. While panels have concluded that constructive notice is not sufficient to support a bad faith finding, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant's mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration").
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <buy-canadacialis.com>, <cialis-withoutadoctorprescription.com>, <canadian-cialis-generic.net>, <cialis-cheapestno-prescription.net>, <cialis-onlinewithoutprescription.com>, <generic-buycialis1.net>, <genericcialis-buy1.com>, <onlineforsale-cialis.net>, <without-prescriptioncialiscanadian.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptions.com>, <comprarcialisespana.net>, <comprarcialisgenericosinreceta10mg.com>, <achatcialispascher.net>, <bestellencialisdeutschland.net>, <buycialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialis-overthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialis-withoutadoctorsprescription.com>, <cialisoverthe-counteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounteratwalmart.net>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.com>, <cialisoverthecounterwalmart.net>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithouta-doctorprescription.com>, <cialiswithoutadoctors-prescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.net>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescriptioncanada.com>, <cialiswithoutdoctorprescriptions.net>, <freetrialcialis.com>, <cialisoverthecounterat-walmart.net>, <cialis-freesample.com>, <cialis20mg-tadalafil.com>, <cialis20mgdocror.com>, <cialisforsaledoctor.com>, <cialisfree-trialoffer.com>, <cialisluck.com>, <cialistrialsample.com>, <cialisusatadalafil.com>, <cialiswithout-adoctorsprescription.com>, <cialiswithouta-doctorsprescription.com>, <tadalafilcialis24.com>, <cialis-withoutdoctorprescription.com>, and <cialiswithoutadoctorprescriptions.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page