WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Roche Products Limited v. George V. Monos
Case No. D2011-0760
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Roche Products Limited of Shire Park, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Lathrop & Gage LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is George V. Monos, a private individual of Warsaw, Poland.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names
<buyaccutanewithoutprescription.net> are registered with UK2 Group Ltd.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2011. On May 3, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to UK2 Group Ltd a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 3, 2011, UK2 Group Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 5, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 25, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 31, 2011.
The Center appointed Keith Gymer as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Roche Products Limited, together with its affiliated companies (“Roche”), is one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics and has global operations in more than 100 countries.
The Complainant owns ROACCUTANE, a registered trademark in multiple countries, including in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Malaysia and Singapore.
The mark ROACCUTANE of Roche designates a drug, namely isotretinoin, indicated for the treatment of severe nodular and/or inflammatory acne conglobata or recalcitrant acne. ACCUTANE has also been used by Roche since 1972. The mark ACCUTANE, likewise for an isotretinoin medication, was itself extensively promoted in print advertisements, in medical journals, promotional materials, packaging, medical informational materials, television advertising and direct mailings.
The Respondent, George V. Monos, is identified as a private individual in the WhoIs records for the disputed domain names. According to the WhoIs records, each of the disputed domain names (i) <buyaccutaneprescription.com> and (ii) <buyaccutanewithoutprescription.net> was first registered on January 13, 2011. The disputed domain names are both used for websites headed “Canadian Healthcare”, which offer pharmaceutical products, including ACCUTANE, for sale online.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant’s case is based on the following grounds (comprising edited extracts taken from the Complaint):
The Disputed Domain Names Are Confusingly Similar To A Trademark Or Service Mark In Which The Complainant Has Rights
The Complainant owns the mark ROACCUTANE (a contraction of ROche ACCUTANE), registered in the U.K. (as UK 1119969, dating from September 3, 1979) and elsewhere, which mark is used as a brand for the Complainant’s isotretinoin medication. The Complainant has also used the mark ACCUTANE for an isotretinoin medication. The ACCUTANE mark has been the subject of hundreds of millions of dollars in sales and has become famous. Evidence of such fame in the form of unsolicited media attention, including newspaper and magazine articles, was provided as an exhibit to the Complaint. The brand is still sold by the Complainant on a limited scale, and the fame of the brand is retained, as demonstrated by the continued use of ACCUTANE in domain names by third parties marketing isotretinoin products. See Roche Products Limited v. Andrew Palanich / Merchservice, NAF Claim No. 1354115, stating “Continued public use of the product over more than three decades has provided sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and warrants trademark protection […] under Policy [para.] 4(a)(i).”
The disputed domain names contain the entire ACCUTANE trademark of Roche. Further, the mark ROACCUTANE adds only “RO”, the first two letters of Roche, the owner of these names and marks comprising or containing ACCUTANE. In light of this, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names creates a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, association or endorsement of the Respondent’s web sites associated with its disputed domain names by Roche. “The Complainant holds rights in the ROACCUTANE and ACCUTANE trademarks [...] [and the disputed domain names, containing ACCUTANE and descriptive words] are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ROACCUTANE and ACCUTANE trademarks.” See Roche Products Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Christian Hunter, WIPO Case No. D2010-1892.
After learning of the Respondent’s unauthorized registration of the disputed domain names incorporating the mark ACCUTANE, on April 8, 2011, Roche, through its counsel, Elizabeth Atkins of the law firm Lathrop & Gage LLP, sent a letter [exhibited in the Complaint] by FedEx and by e-mail to the Respondent’s e-mail address indicated in the WhoIs record for the disputed domain names. In the April 8th communication, counsel for Roche advised the Respondent that the registration of the disputed domain names infringed trademark rights of Roche and requested that the Respondent transfer the disputed domain names to Roche. The FedEx package containing the mentioned letter was returned to the Complainant’s attorneys as “Incorrect address – Street name/number”. Furthermore, the letter transmitted by e-mail was returned as “could not be delivered – The problem appears to be: Recipient email server rejected the message”. Providing false contact information is evidence of bad faith. See Oxygen Media LLC v. Primary Source, WIPO Case No. 2000-0362. Such acts committed by the Respondent create confusion in the marketplace and cause harm to the Complainant and the public.
“Numerous [UDRP] Panel decisions have established that the addition of words, letters or numbers to a mark used in a domain name does not alter the fact that the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. Generally, a user of a mark ‘may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it.’” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 23:50 (4th ed. 1998). Thus, the descriptive language added here, namely, “buy”, “without” and “prescription” does not prevent the likelihood of confusion in this case. See America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan, WIPO Case No. D2001-0004 citing Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F. 3d 489, 497-98 (2d. Cir. 2000).
Here, the disputed domain names incorporate the whole of the ACCUTANE mark of Roche (so similar to the ROACCUTANE mark), and adds the term “buy”, “without” and “prescription.” The Respondent’s sites offer ACCUTANE brand (depicting ACCUTANE packaging of Roche), but in fact, actually supply “Generic Accutane”, i.e., isotretinoin product of competitors of Complainant, providing isotretinoin in a 30, as well as 60 and 90 day supply, when only a 30 day supply is permitted, under FDA regulations. Additionally, skin care products of competitors, and multiple pharmaceutical products of Complainant’s competitors are for sale, as illustrated in the exhibited printouts from the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names, containing ACCUTANE plus descriptive terms, are identical or confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE and ROACCUTANE trademarks of Roche within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
The Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interests In The Disputed Domain Names And Has Not Been Commonly Known By The Disputed Domain Names
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. “Roaccutane” and “Accutane” are not ordinary words and have no valid use other than in connection with Roche brands of isotretinoin acne medication. Roche has not authorized the Respondent to use the mark “ACCUTANE” or to incorporate the ACCUTANE portion of the ROACCUTANE trademark into any domain names. Furthermore, Roche has never granted the Respondent a license to use the mark ACCUTANE or the ACCUTANE portion of the ROACCUTANE trademark in any manner. In fact, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names indicates that the disputed domain names were selected and are being used because of the goodwill created by Roche in its ROACCUTANE and ACCUTANE trademarks. Based upon the Respondent’s web sites, it is clear that neither the Respondent nor its web sites have been commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii).
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is purely disreputable. The Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to web sites, which do not appear to sell the ACCUTANE brand of isotretinoin offered on the Respondent’s sites. Nevertheless, the Respondent’s sites use ACCUTANE brand packaging of Roche and actually sell competitive third party products including competitive generic isotretinoin in more than a 30 day supply of isotretinoin (which is against FDA regulations), and other skin care and other pharmaceutical products of third party competitors of Roche. Such activity is infringing, and likely to confuse purchasers, all to the damage of Roche and the possible harm of the purchasing public. All of the Respondent’s uses of the ACCUTANE trademark are without authorization or permission from Roche.
These actions undertaken by the Respondent may lead a consumer to believe that the Respondent is the source of the ACCUTANE product and related information, or that the Respondent’s use of ACCUTANE in the disputed domain names and web sites are affiliated with or sponsored by Roche. Alternatively, such uses by the Respondent may lead consumers to believe that the web sites reached from “www.buyaccutaneprescription.com” and “www.buyaccutanewithoutprescription.net” are sites owned and/or operated by Roche.
Such use by the Respondent of ACCUTANE in the disputed domain names may lead consumers to believe that the disputed domain names reached are sites owned and/or operated by the Complainant. The Respondent, by use and registration of the disputed domain names, seeks to capitalize on the reputation associated with such trademarks of Roche. Furthermore, the Respondent seeks to use that recognition to divert Internet users seeking web sites of a member of the Roche group as to ACCUTANE or ROACCUTANE to the Respondent’s web sites, wholly unrelated to Roche. Such uses of the mark ACCUTANE of Roche, nearly identical to its mark ROACCUTANE, are clear indications of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
In the present case, the Respondent’s appropriation and use of the ACCUTANE trademark of Roche, very similar to the ROACCUTANE mark, is a clear attempt to create and benefit from consumer confusion regarding the Respondent’s activities and the bona fide business of Roche. As such, it is clear that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. “[T]he disputed domain name is being used to promote products of Complainant’s competitors [...] Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name [therefore] demonstrates Respondent’s lack of a legitimate non-commercial interest in, or fair use of, the domain name.” Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Onlinetamiflu.com, WIPO Case No. D2007-1806, citing Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a/ Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-0784.
The Respondent Has Not Used The Disputed Domain Names For A Bona Fide Offering Of Goods Or Services
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to divert Internet users seeking a Roche group web site associated with the domain name <accutane.com> or the ACCUTANE dermatological preparation product to unrelated web sites which use the ACCUTANE and ROACCUTANE marks of Roche without license or authorization of any kind.
The Respondent’s use and incorporation of ACCUTANE in the disputed domain names is evidence of the Respondent’s intent to trade upon the reputation of the ACCUTANE mark, which is very similar to the ROACCUTANE mark. “The Panel also finds under the circumstances of this case that as Respondent’s use intentionally trades on the fame of Complainant’s trademark, it cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services”. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Alisia Uzun, WIPO Case No. D2008-1138.
There is no bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. The Respondent’s commercial activity undertaken through use of the disputed domain names is neither fair use nor bona fide under the Policy. The unauthorized appropriation of another’s trademark in a domain name and the commercial use of the corresponding website cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. See, e.g., America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, WIPO Case No. D2000-1374 (“it would be unconscionable to find […] a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of [its] web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business”), cited in Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Aneko Bohner, WIPO Case No. D2006-0629.
The disputed domain names contain ‘ACCUTANE’, and is confusingly similar to the ACCUTANE mark, as well as the ROACCUTANE trademark of Roche, both of which are used for isotretinoin acne medications. See Roche Products Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Christian Hunter, WIPO Case No. D2010-1892.
The Respondent Is Not Making A Legitimate Noncommercial Or Fair Use Of The Disputed Domain Names Without Intent For Commercial Gain
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain. See the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). Clearly, the Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Roche, and is using the ACCUTANE mark, so similar to the ROACCUTANE mark, in the disputed domain names to sell products including isotretinoin of competitors competitive to the ACCUTANE and ROACCUTANE isotretinoin acne drug products of Roche, and other pharmaceutical products of third parties without a license or authorization from Roche, all to the confusion of purchasers and detriment of the Complainant. This does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. James Mahony, NAF Claim No. FA112559 (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to solicit pharmaceutical orders without a license or authorization from Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services). The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain names containing the mark ACCUTANE, so similar to the ROACCUTANE mark, is in no way connected with Roche, and is trading on same for commercial gain.
The disputed domain names containing the mark ACCUTANE are being used to promote competitors’ generic forms of isotretinoin, and other drugs of competitors of Roche, and to sell such products. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names therefore demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of a legitimate noncommercial or legitimate interest in, or fair use of, the disputed domain names. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek, WIPO Case No. D2007-1814, citing Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a/ Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-1082 “Respondent is likely receiving some pecuniary benefit […] in consideration of directing traffic to (such sales) site(s)”.
The Respondent Registered And Is Using The Disputed Domain Names In Bad Faith
The Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain names is demonstrated by numerous facts. Specifically, the Complainant submits the following evidence:
The Respondent’s true purpose in registering the disputed domain names which incorporate the mark ACCUTANE in its entirety, so similar to the ROACCUTANE mark, is to capitalize on the reputation of the ACCUTANE mark by diverting Internet users seeking Roche group web sites to the Respondent’s own web sites, without any permission from Roche, to solicit orders through use of a picture of ACCUTANE packaging, actually selling a third party generic form of isotretinoin, as well as other skin care and other third party pharmaceutical products. The bad faith of the Registrant is clearly evident from the fact that:
(a) “ACCUTANE” is not a word.
(b) The mark ACCUTANE is an invented and coined mark that has an extremely strong reputation in North America.
(c) By using the disputed domain names to sell third party generic isotretinoin products, without permission or license of any kind, under the ACCUTANE trademark in the disputed domain names and on the Respondent’s web sites, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for financial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ACCUTANE mark, and the nearly identical ROACCUTANE mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s web sites or the goods sold on or through the Respondent’s web sites. Furthermore, the Respondent was aware of the ACCUTANE mark, and the nearly identical ROACCUTANE mark, and has given false contact information to avoid being reached by objection letter. Providing false WhoIs content information is in itself a matter of bad faith. See Oxygen Media LLC v. Primary Source, WIPO Case No. D2000-0362. Such acts committed by the Respondent create confusion in the marketplace and cause harm to the Complainant and the public.
(d) The Respondent’s web sites have no legitimate business connection with Roche or the ACCUTANE or ROACCUTANE isotretinoin dermatological preparations. Roche has never granted the Respondent permission or a license of any kind to use its trademark ACCUTANE in domain names or in connected web sites to sell third party competitive isotretinoin products.
(e) Use of the disputed domain names to promote sales of competitors’ products through use of the famous ACCUTANE mark of Roche, so similar to the ROACCUTANE mark, demonstrates bad faith use. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek, WIPO Case No. D2007-1814 (citations omitted).
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
The Respondent did not provide any Response to the Complainant’s allegations.
6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide to grant the remedy of transfer or cancellation of a domain name to a complainant under the Policy it is necessary that the complainant must prove, as required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The fact that the Respondent has not provided a formal Response to the Complaint in this case does not relieve the Complainant of the burden of proving its case. In the absence of a Response, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules expressly requires the Panel to “decide the dispute based upon the complaint”. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed to a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.”
Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits in respect of each of the disputed domain names.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated registered trade mark rights in ROACCUTANE, and has provided evidence that it has substantial use and reputation in relation to the mark ACCUTANE, plainly sufficient to establish significant goodwill and at least common law rights in the ACCUTANE mark. (From a simple check on the United Kingdom register, the Panel also notes that the mark ACCUTANE is in fact protected in the UK as a designation of International Registration 840371, dating from 2004, although this registration is held in the name of F. Hoffmann La Roche AG. As this is evidently the Complainant’s own parent company, the Panel is somewhat surprised that this registration was not expressly mentioned in the Complaint.)
The marks ROACCUTANE and ACCUTANE are not ordinary words, with any other familiar meaning. They are rather highly distinctive, invented word marks, associated exclusively with the Complainant’s isotretinoin medicaments, and which are well-known marks with widespread international recognition following decades of use.
The disputed domain names each incorporate the ACCUTANE mark, along with simple descriptive elements “buy”, “prescription” and, in the second case, “without”.
The Panel has no doubt that the mark ACCUTANE has been incorporated in the disputed domain names expressly to refer to the Complainant’s isotretinoin medicaments as an invitation to people seeking such products online to visit the websites accessed via the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names will inevitably be read as “buy-ACCUTANE-prescription” and “buy-ACCUTANE-without-prescription”. It is the “ACCUTANE” which provides the sole distinctive and attractive element, which prospective consumers will perceive.
Consequently, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to an earlier trademark in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights, and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, (by way of example) might serve to demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, 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) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is 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.
The Respondent has made no claims to any relevant prior rights of its own in respect of either of the disputed domain names; clearly, the Respondent is not personally known by either of the disputed domain names, nor has he claimed to have made any legitimate use of the disputed domain names.
The evidence in the Complaint leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Respondent has deliberately constructed each of the disputed domain names to take advantage of public recognition of the Complainant’s ACCUTANE mark and medicaments - specifically by establishing a website for selling pharmaceuticals under the ACCUTANE name - and thereby passing itself off as being authorised or licensed by the Complainant to market specialist pharmaceutical products online using the ACCUTANE brand.
In the Panel’s view such deceptive activity could never be considered as a bona fide offering or use. It is unquestionably an illegitimate use, expressly for commercial gain, which will inevitably mislead and divert consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s name and mark, and is entirely the opposite of the legitimate examples above from paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy.
Consequently, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of either disputed domain name and the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following are some pertinent examples of the sort of conduct which the Panel may take (without limitation) as evidence of registration and use in bad faith:
(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, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the 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 Respondent’s website or location.
The Complainant’s evidence, which has not been rebutted or challenged by the Respondent, establishes to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Respondent has registered and used each of the disputed domain names for the purpose of operating websites using the mark and name to attract users, for commercial gain, through unregulated, online pharmaceutical services selling ACCUTANE or competitors’ generic isotretinoin or substitute products and other unrelated pharmaceutical products. As stated by the Complainant, the websites use images of the Complainant’s own Roche ACCUTANE packaging to mislead potential purchasers as to the nature and source of the products offered for sale.
The websites carry the heading “Canadian Healthcare” alongside an image in the shape of a blue Viagra tablet with a Canadian maple leaf inset. The websites provide pricing in USD, UK£ and Euros for United States, United Kingdom, German, Italian and French markets according to the “Choose language” options available on the website. All of these jurisdictions have strict regulation for pharmaceutical sales and services.
The evidence shows that the websites associated with the disputed domain names are intended to create a misleading and confusing impression as to the source, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website business(es). Inevitably, such misuse will cause disruption and damage to the Complainant’s business and reputation in the [RO]ACCUTANE marks.
Additionally, and as has been observed in similar previous cases, the Panel also considers it significant that the contact address details for the Respondent were apparently inaccurate. Both the Complainant’s own attempted correspondence before the Complaint was filed, and the Center’s subsequent correspondence to the Respondent were undeliverable owing to the incorrect contact details on the WHOIS records for the domain names. From the website screenshots provided in evidence, it is also clear that no contact address was provided on the Respondent’s websites to identify where the operator of the business was really located.
In the Panel’s opinion, no ordinary commercial business has any justification for concealing its name and true contact details, and such action would indeed be in contravention of company law and consumer protection legislation in many jurisdictions, particularly in relation to the sale of pharmaceutical products. As the Respondent has made no attempt to offer any legitimate explanation for its actions, such concealment may be considered as further evidence of bad faith intent on the part of the Respondent.
As the Panel has often seen in cases where prescription drugs are offered by online traders with no apparent medically qualified review, the evidence suggests to the Panel that the Respondent’s business location is hidden precisely to avoid the fiscal and regulatory costs and oversight, which legitimate pharmaceutical businesses would be obliged to bear in the interest of consumer protection.
From the evidence, it is clear that isotretinoin, for example, can have very serious side-effects and is therefore subject to strict rules regarding its prescription and the requirements for proper medical supervision. The Respondent’s websites are plainly directed at circumventing such rules and supervisory requirements. The websites do carry some text, which appears to be the bizarre result of a machine (mis)translation of information possibly about side effects taken from a pharmaceutical insert, but this text is so garbled as to be incomprehensible to any ordinary reader.
Consumers would therefore be put at risk to their health as a consequence of such irresponsible disregard for relevant pharmaceutical rules and requirements for proper medical supervision of the use of such products.
The example of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is directly applicable in the present case.
For the purposes of the Policy, therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have each been registered and are being used in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also met.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, <buyaccutaneprescription.com> and <buyaccutanewithoutprescription.net> be transferred to the Complainant.
Dated: June 17, 2011