Eli Lilly and Company v. Vitaliy Panov / Ivan Polyakov
Complainant is Eli Lilly and Company (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie A. Gumm of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Vitaliy Panov / Ivan Polyakov (“Respondent”), Belarus.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <cialisblack.review>, <cialisblack800mg.review>, <cialisindiapharmacy.review>, <cialisnoprescription.review>, <cialisonsaleinusa.review>, <cialispillsforsale.review>, <cialistabletsforsale.review>, and <cialisviagracombopack.review>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; and <canadianpharmacycialis.science>, <canadianpharmacycialis20mg.science>, <cialisgeneric.science>, <bestpricecialis.review>, <bestpricecialis20mg.review>, <blackcialis800mg.review>, <cheapcialisfromindia.review>, <cheapestcialisonline.review>, <cialis20mgforsale.review>, <cialis40mg.review>, <cialis5mgbestprice.review>, <cialis5mgprice.review>, <cialiscanada.review>, <cialisfreesamples.review>, <cialisfromindia.review>, <cialisonlinenoprescription.review>, <cialisprices.review>, <cialissamples.review>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.review>, <cialiswithoutprescription.review>, <genericcialiscanada.review>, <genericcialisforsale.review>, <genericcialisonline.review>, <rhineinccialis.review>, <tadalafilgenericvscialis.review>, <viagracialiscombo.review>, and <viagravscialis.review>, registered with Gandi SAS.
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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 7, 2016; the Forum received payment on September 7, 2016.
On September 7, 2016, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cialisblack.review>, <cialisblack800mg.review>, <cialisindiapharmacy.review>, <cialisnoprescription.review>, <cialisonsaleinusa.review>, <cialispillsforsale.review>, <cialistabletsforsale.review>, and <cialisviagracombopack.review> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 September 8, 2016, Gandi SAS confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <canadianpharmacycialis.science>, <canadianpharmacycialis20mg.science>, <cialisgeneric.science>, <bestpricecialis.review>, <bestpricecialis20mg.review>, <blackcialis800mg.review>, <cheapcialisfromindia.review>, <cheapestcialisonline.review>, <cialis20mgforsale.review>, <cialis40mg.review>, <cialis5mgbestprice.review>, <cialis5mgprice.review>, <cialiscanada.review>, <cialisfreesamples.review>, <cialisfromindia.review>, <cialisonlinenoprescription.review>, <cialisprices.review>, <cialissamples.review>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.review>, <cialiswithoutprescription.review>, <genericcialiscanada.review>, <genericcialisforsale.review>, <genericcialisonline.review>, <rhineinccialis.review>, <tadalafilgenericvscialis.review>, <viagracialiscombo.review>, and <viagravscialis.review> domain names are registered with Gandi SAS and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gandi SAS has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gandi SAS registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On September 12, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 3, 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@cialisblack.review, postmaster@canadianpharmacycialis.science, postmaster@canadianpharmacycialis20mg.science, postmaster@cialisgeneric.science, postmaster@bestpricecialis.review, postmaster@bestpricecialis20mg.review, postmaster@blackcialis800mg.review, postmaster@cheapcialisfromindia.review, postmaster@cheapestcialisonline.review, postmaster@cialis20mgforsale.review, postmaster@cialis40mg.review, postmaster@cialis5mgbestprice.review, postmaster@cialis5mgprice.review, postmaster@cialiscanada.review, postmaster@cialisfreesamples.review, postmaster@cialisfromindia.review, postmaster@cialisonlinenoprescription.review, postmaster@cialisprices.review, postmaster@cialissamples.review, postmaster@cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.review, postmaster@cialiswithoutprescription.review, postmaster@genericcialiscanada.review, postmaster@genericcialisforsale.review, postmaster@genericcialisonline.review, postmaster@rhineinccialis.review, postmaster@tadalafilgenericvscialis.review, postmaster@viagracialiscombo.review, postmaster@viagravscialis.review, postmaster@cialisblack800mg.review, postmaster@cialisindiapharmacy.review, postmaster@cialisnoprescription.review, postmaster@cialisonsaleinusa.review, postmaster@cialispillsforsale.review, postmaster@cialistabletsforsale.review, and postmaster@cialisviagracombopack.review. Also on September 12, 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 10, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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.
Panel notes that the Registration Agreements are in the French language. The language of these Administrative Proceedings is therefore French. However Complainant makes the request that the proceedings be in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11.
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. Previous panels have paid regard to information which shows Respondent to be familiar with the English language. Panel notes that the term CIALIS, in which Complainant asserts trademark rights, is coupled in of the disputed domain names with descriptive English language terms, such as “cheap,” “online” and “generic” (and/or with geographical place names), underscoring the likelihood that Respondent is familiar with the English language.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), Panel finds that this is evidence enough to suggest that Respondent is proficient in the English language and so Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
Preliminary Issue #2: Multiple Respondents
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.”
The domain names are registered to either Ivan Polyakov or Vitaliy Panov and in each case the WhoIs records use the email address ipolyakov2@yandex.ru or vitalikpanov2@yandex.ru as the registrant, technical and administrative email contact. All of the websites associated with the domain names are hosted at Hosting Solutions International and share the same IP address.
Whether or not Ivan Polyakov or Vitaliy Panov are the names of actual persons, Complainant alleged that the domain names are all under the control of a common person or enterprise. In support thereof, Complainant states that a company providing assistance to it in these proceedings, LegitScript, has determined that the disputed domain names are under the control of a single enterprise that uses false contact information to register domains. Further, that the active websites associated with the domains are part of either the Worldwide Drug Store or EVApharmacy.ru, both being networks that advertise and sell generic versions of Complainant’s CIALIS brand product under the names “American Pharmacy” or “Canadian Heath & Care Mall” Furthermore, the websites associated with the domain names linked to Worldwide Drug Store use the dedicated payment portal card-billing.net to collect payment from customers. Similarly, of the websites associated with EVApharmacy.ru use an imbedded payment processor to collect payment information.
Despite the fact that there are 35 domain names in dispute in this single action, the Panel accepts on this evidence that it is more likely than not that a single controlling force lies behind all of the domain names. In drawing that conclusion the Panel is influenced in part by the fact that no Response has been made in respect of any of the names. Secondly, by the fact that all of the domain names are linked to one or other of two relatively new gTLDs, either “.science” or “.review”. The Panel therefore allows this single Administrative Proceeding to continue against all of the disputed domain names.[i]
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in CIALIS and alleges that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant develops and sells pharmaceutical preparations;
2. Complainant owns the trademark CIALIS, the subject, inter alia, of United States Patent & Trademark Office Trademark Reg. No. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003;
3. The disputed domain names were registered during 2016, postdating Complainant’s trademark registration;
4. The disputed domain names redirect Internauts to websites which promote the sale of pharmaceuticals, including generic substitutes for the goods sold under the CIALIS trademark; and
5. There is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its trademark registration with a Federal authority.
For the purposes of comparison the gTLDs “.science” or “.review”. can be disregarded since they are of no source distinguishing value. Stripped of those gTLDs, the disputed domain names all incorporate the trademark into composite terms by way of the addition of one or more of the following:
(i) dosage indications (eg., 40mg, black); (ii) other pharmaceutical names (eg., Viagra); (iii) the name of the active agent, Tadalafil; (iv) indications of source (“Canada”, “from India” or “ in USA”; (ii) descriptive words or phrases such as “for sale”, “best price”, “online”, “discount”, “generic”, “buy”, “pharmacy”, “purchase”, “cheap”, “best price”, “tablets”, “no prescription”, “without a prescription”, or various combinations thereof.
The trademark remains the distinctive element in all of the combinations. Accordingly, Panel finds that all of the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark.[ii]
Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.[iii]
The publicly available WHOIS information does not provide any prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark. Further, the evidence is that the disputed domain names resolve to websites which promote the sale of goods competitive to those sold under the trademark by Complainant.
Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case[iv] and so the onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain names. In the absence of a Response, the prima facie case against Respondent is not met and so Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and that they are being used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct falls squarely under (at least) paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and (iv) above. The registration of 35 domain names combining the trademark with various generic and descriptive terms constitutes a pattern of (bad faith) conduct.[v] The domain names prevent Complainant from reflecting the trademark in those domain names. Paragraph 4(b)(ii) is satisfied. Further, Panel has already found the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The requisite likelihood of confusion for the purpose of paragraph 4(b)(iv) is satisfied and the resolving websites sell competitive goods and so exist for commercial gain. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) is also satisfied.
Panel finds registration and use in bad faith in respect of all of the disputed domain names. Complainant has therefore established the third and final element of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cialisblack.review>, <canadianpharmacycialis.science>, <canadianpharmacycialis20mg.science>, <cialisgeneric.science>, <bestpricecialis.review>, <bestpricecialis20mg.review>, <blackcialis800mg.review>, <cheapcialisfromindia.review>, <cheapestcialisonline.review>, <cialis20mgforsale.review>, <cialis40mg.review>, <cialis5mgbestprice.review>, <cialis5mgprice.review>, <cialiscanada.review>, <cialisfreesamples.review>, <cialisfromindia.review>, <cialisonlinenoprescription.review>, <cialisprices.review>, <cialissamples.review>, <cialiswithoutadoctorsprescription.review>, <cialiswithoutprescription.review>, <genericcialiscanada.review>, <genericcialisforsale.review>, <genericcialisonline.review>, <rhineinccialis.review>, <tadalafilgenericvscialis.review>, <viagracialiscombo.review>, <viagravscialis.review>, <cialisblack800mg.review>, <cialisindiapharmacy.review>, <cialisnoprescription.review>, <cialisonsaleinusa.review>, <cialispillsforsale.review>, <cialistabletsforsale.review> and <cialisviagracombopack.review> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2016
[i] See, for example, Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, et al., D2010-0281 (WIPO May 18, 2010) explaining that “decisions have been rendered against multiple respondents in single proceedings based on the presence of a common administrative or technical contact, or other instances of commonality in the registration information, such as the same postal address or email address,” as well as “where the content of their websites was substantially identical and referred Internet visitors to a common ‘homepage.’”
[ii] See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; see also Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) finding <westfieldshopping.com> confusingly similar to the WESTFIELD trademark; see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
[iii] See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000 0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
[iv] See, e.g., Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (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).”).
[v] See, for example, Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (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).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page