STADA Arzneimittel AG v. chen jie et al.
Claim Number: FA1606001677367
Complainant: STADA Arzneimittel AG of Bad Vilbel, Germany.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: HARMSEN UTESCHER of Hamburg, Germany.
Respondent: chen jie of Dong Guan Shi, GD, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: chen jie
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.; DotSite Inc.; DotWebsite Inc.
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 1, 2016
Commencement: June 2, 2016
Default Date: June 17, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure, Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Examiner finds that Respondent did not file a Response and is in default.
The Examiner finds that Complainant satisfied the burden as set out below.
The Examiner finds no bad faith by Complainant.
The Examiner finds that the three disputed domain names shall be SUSPENDED for the duration of their registrations.
Although Respondent defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant proved its right to the valid U.S. trademark registration No. 656708 and European No. 569194, first used in commerce at least by the 1953 application year, registered April 27, 1954, covering pharmaceutical goods and services, along with registrations for a family of STADA marks worldwide, a trademark that was verified as in current use.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is STADA; the added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the domain name type designations and/or extensions, all of which are irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark; the additions in this case do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent filed no Response addressing URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected STADA mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure since Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing these domain names, and using them to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s well known mark and products for commercial gain by creating the false suggestion that Respondent’s sites are sponsored or offered by Complainant. In fact, Respondent did not file a Response and offered no proof in this case and nothing in the record gives rise to any suggestion that Respondent somehow has a legitimate interest in these disputed domain names containing in its entirety Complainant’s protected mark.
Respondent filed no Response addressing URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that the disputed domain names redirect to Respondent’s own site all for the purpose of Respondent’s own commercial gain and creating a likelihood of confusions for Internet users attempting to access Complainant’s STADA sites for STADA services and products. See Complainant, page 2, paragraphs 1 and 6.
The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding and did NOT contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<stada.online><stada.site><stada.website>
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: June 17, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page