Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC v. Lizunkina Marina / Privacy protection service - r01.whoisproxy.ru. / Aleksandr Popov / Above.com Legal / Mirniy Alex / Peter Grisham / David Esenstein / Hillel Yaffe Medical Center / Dan Waits / Domain Admin / Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich / Alex Oland
Claim Number: FA1608001691775
Complainant is Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (“Complainant”), represented by Chantal Z. Hwang of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Lizunkina Marina / Privacy protection service - r01.whoisproxy.ru. / Aleksandr Popov / Above.com Legal / Mirniy Alex / Peter Grisham / David Esenstein / Hillel Yaffe Medical Center / Dan Waits / Domain Admin / Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich / Alex Oland (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <buysovaldionusa.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <sovaldihepatitisc.net> registered with Paknic (Private) Limited; <buysovaldiinindia.com>, registered with EuroDNS S.A.; <sovaldi-buy.com>, registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd.; <hepatitissovaldi.com>, registered with Eranet International Limited; <sovaldibargainprices.com>, registered with Rebel Ltd; <sovaldi.click> and <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.; <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz; <sovaldidrugstore.com>, registered with Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER; <buy-sovaldi-online.com> registered with JSC Registrar R01; <sovaldionlinestore.com>, registered with AFRIREGISTER S.A.; <sovaldi-store.com>, registered with Todaynic.com, Inc.; and <sovaldii.com>, registered with Kheweul.com SA.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 30, 2016; the Forum received payment on August 30, 2016.
On August 30, 2016, Paknic (Private) Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <buysovaldionusa.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <sovaldihepatitisc.net> domain names are registered with Paknic (Private) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Paknic (Private) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Paknic (Private) Limited 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 August 31, 2016, EuroDNS S.A. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <buysovaldiinindia.com> domain name is registered with EuroDNS S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. EuroDNS S.A. has verified that Respondent is bound by the EuroDNS S.A. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On August 31, 2016, Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldi-buy.com> domain name is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 the Policy.
On August 31, 2016, Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hepatitissovaldi.com> domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Eranet International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On August 31, 2016, Rebel Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldibargainprices.com> domain name is registered with Rebel Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Rebel Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel Ltd registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On August 31, 2016, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldi.click> and <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com> 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 September 1, 2016, Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 1, 2016, Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldidrugstore.com> domain name is registered with Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER has verified that Respondent is bound by the Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 2, 2016, JSC Registrar R01 confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <buy-sovaldi-online.com> domain name is registered with JSC Registrar R01 and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. JSC Registrar R01 has verified that Respondent is bound by the JSC Registrar R01 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 2, 2016, AFRIREGISTER S.A. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldionlinestore.com> domain name is registered with AFRIREGISTER S.A. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 5, 2016, Todaynic.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldi-store.com> domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Todaynic.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Todaynic.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 8, 2016, Kheweul.com SA confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sovaldii.com> domain name is registered with Kheweul.com SA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Kheweul.com SA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Kheweul.com SA registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 9, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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-sovaldi-online.com, postmaster@sovaldi-buy.com, postmaster@hepatitissovaldi.com, postmaster@sovaldibargainprices.com, postmaster@generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com, postmaster@sovaldionlinestore.com, postmaster@sovaldi.click, postmaster@sovaldi-store.com, postmaster@sovaldidrugstore.com, postmaster@sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com, postmaster@sovaldii.com, postmaster@buysovaldionusa.net, postmaster@sovaldihepatitisc.net, postmaster@hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net, and postmaster@buysovaldiinindia.com. Also on September 9, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 4, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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
1. Complainant operates as a company which develops and manufactures innovative medicines for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. In furtherance of its business purposes, Complainant has registered the SOVALDI mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,468,665, registered Jan. 21, 2014) in connection with a pharmaceutical product “sofosbuvir” which treats chronic Hepatitis C virus (“HCV”). See Compl., at Attached Exhibit 7. Respondent’s <buy-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> are confusingly similar because they each incorporate the SOVALDI mark entirely and merely add descriptive or nondescriptive terms such as “buy,” “generic,” “online,” “store,” or “price.” In addition, Respondent has included “hepatitis” and “sofosbuvir” with the mark, which are related terms to the mark. Further, geographic terms such as “USA” and “India” are added to the mark. Lastly, Respondent adds the generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) “.com,” “.net,” or “.click.”
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to utilize the SOVALDI mark in connection with domain registrations and Respondent is not commonly known by any of the domains. Further, Respondent has attempted to redirect Internet users to websites purporting to offer counterfeit or fake medication without the need for a prescription. See Compl., at Attached Exhibit 9. In addition, per Exhibit 10, Respondent has incorporated thematic elements of Complainant’s websites in order to pass itself off as Complainant online. The foregoing uses do not evince any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
3. Respondent has registered and used the disputed domains in bad faith. Respondent’s offering of counterfeit or generic versions of Complainant’s product indicate an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, this use indicates that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the SOVALDI mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark when registering and using the disputed domain—bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
1. Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Respondent’s <buy-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOVALDI mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <buy-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered or used the <buy-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> domain names in bad faith.
Supported Language Request
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the 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.
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 (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 alleged that the entities which control 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 Respondent is one entity operating under a privacy shield. Complainant cites to its Attached Exhibit 4 to support this allegation, which lists the WHOIS information for the disputed domains. Complainant also provides several arguments as to why the multiple Respondents should be treated as a single Respondent in ¶¶ 7–25.
The Panel finds the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
Complainant operates as a company which develops and manufactures innovative medicines for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. In furtherance of its business purposes, Complainant claims it has registered the SOVALDI mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,468,665, registered Jan. 21, 2014) in connection with a pharmaceutical product “sofosbuvir” which treats chronic HCV. See Compl., at Attached Exhibit 7. Panels have—via a consensus—held USPTO registrations as an adequate standard in assessing Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark.” This Panel agrees that Complainant has adequately represented its rights in the SOVALDI mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <buy-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> are confusingly similar because they each incorporate the SOVALDI mark entirely and merely add descriptive or nondescriptive terms such as “buy,” “generic,” “online,” “store,” or “price.” In addition, Respondent has included “hepatitis” and “sofosbuvir” with the mark, which are related terms to the mark. Further, geographic terms such as “USA” and “India” are added to the mark. Lastly, Respondent adds the gTLDs “.com,” “.net,” or “.click.” Generic or descriptive terms added to a mark have not been seen as compelling alterations. See generally Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.). Geographic terms have also been considered irrelevant. See Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) (finding that as “the ‘usa’ portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds.”); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. Kumar, FA 744436 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding that the <indiaticketmaster.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s TICKETMASTER mark). Lastly, the gTLD additions may be seen as having no distinguishing effect. See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domains are confusingly similar to the SOVALDI mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 (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 (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 or to the disputed domain names. In arguing this, Complainant notes that it has not authorized Respondent to utilize the SOVALDI mark in connection with domain registrations, nor is Respondent commonly known by any of the domains. Complainant notes the WHOIS information of record does not reflect registrant in any way is connected to the domains. Complainant also submits that much of the WHOIS is false and/or privacy protected. Panels have agreed that such arguments have merit under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tenza Trading Ltd. v. WhoisProtectService.net / PROTECTSERVICE, LTD., FA1506001624077 (Forum July 31, 2015) (“The WHOIS information lists ‘WhoisProtectService.net’ as the registrant of record for the disputed domain names. Accordingly, in the absence of a Response, there is no evidence to indicate that Respondent might be known by any of the domain names.”). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Complainant has met its burden of establishing a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to redirect Internet users to websites purporting to offer counterfeit or fake medication without the need for a prescription. See Compl., at Attached Exhibit 9. In addition, per Exhibit 10, Respondent has incorporated thematic elements of Complainant’s websites in order to pass itself off as Complainant online. Panels have agreed that both passing off and counterfeit use do not meet the requirements set forth by Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA 203208 (Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Therefore, this Panel agrees that Complainant has established Respondent has not provided any use of the domains which could fall under the guise of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domains in bad faith. Complainant’s argument centers on Respondent’s purported offering of counterfeit or generic versions of Complainant’s product indicate an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compl., at Attached Exhibit 9. Panels have agreed that attempts to sell counterfeit products clearly evince Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) (“As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). therefore, in light of the evidence provided by Complainant, the Panel agrees that Respondent has intended to disrupt the legitimate business of Complainant as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Finally, this disruptive use is argued by Complainant to indicate that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the SOVALDI mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark when registering and using the disputed domain—bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Panels have looked to circumstances of disputed domain usage in weighing a totality of circumstances in finding actual knowledge, as constructive knowledge has been consistently ruled out as a consideration under the Policy. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Therefore, the Panel agrees that the circumstances of this case indicate that Respondent did in fact actually know of Complainant and the SOVALDI mark and intended to register and use the disputed domains in bad faith.
Complainant argues Respondent has engaged a privacy service, and in doing so withholds identifying information. The consensus view amongst panels is that use of a privacy service, without more, cannot reach the threshold of bad faith registration and use. See WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v. Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks, D2006-0975 (WIPO November 1, 2006) (finding use of proxy registration service does not of itself indicate bad faith; there are many legitimate reasons for proxy registration services); see also Divex Limited v. ZJ, Sam Chang and Tim NG, D2007-0861 (WIPO September 21, 2007) (finding privacy services may be justified by the need to avoid spam and identity theft). However, the totality of the circumstances which surround a respondent’s engagement of a privacy service may give rise to a finding of bad faith registration and use. See, e.g., HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager, D2007-0062 (WIPO June 4, 2007) (finding a change of privacy service after notice of complaint indicative of bad faith); see also Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, D2008-0647 (WIPO July 2, 2008) (stating that use of privacy shield can be “treated as evidence of bad faith . . . when serial registrants use privacy shields to mask each registrant’s actual date of registration”). Therefore, Panel agrees that Respondent has utilized a privacy shield in a manner which materially adversely affects or obscures the facts of this proceeding, and agrees that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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-sovaldi-online.com>, <sovaldi-buy.com>, <hepatitissovaldi.com>, <sovaldibargainprices.com>, <generic-sovaldi-sofosbuvir-cost.com>, <sovaldionlinestore.com>, <sovaldi.click>, <sovaldi-store.com>, <sovaldidrugstore.com>, <sovaldi-sofosbuvir.com>, <sovaldii.com>, <buysovaldionusa.net>, <sovaldihepatitisc.net>, <hepatitis-genericsovaldion.net>, and <buysovaldiinindia.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: October 17, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page