À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Glaxo Group Limited v. Cook Creative Domain Limited

Case No. D2011-1685

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Glaxo Group Limited of Middlesex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“U.K.”) represented by GlaxoSmithKline, United States of America (“U.S.”).

The Respondent is Cook Creative Domain Limited of Raratonga, Cook Islands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <daraprim.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 4, 2011. On October 5, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 5, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 October 7, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 27, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2011.

The Center appointed Simon Minahan as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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 is a member of the GlaxoSmithKline group of pharmaceutical companies and the owner of the trademark DARAPRIM which it has used worldwide since 1951 in connection with medicinal preparations for the treatment of malaria. It currently holds trademark registrations for the mark DARAPRIM in 89 different jurisdictions around the world.

The trademark DARAPRIM is a “fancy” mark, being an invented word with no inherent meaning in natural language that the Panel has been able to discover.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 21, 2003. The disputed domain name has been and is being used commercially by resolving to a website which hosts links to an on-line pharmaceutical supply source operating under the name CanPharm.com. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used without the consent of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered DARAPRIM trademark and that by reason of the long standing and wide use of that trademark for more than 50 years before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is presumed to have known of the Complainant’s rights in the mark and to have therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. It cites PepsiCo, Inc. v. “null” aka Alexander Zhavoronkov, WIPO Case No. D2002-0562, among others, in support of this contention.

The Complainant further contends that the blatant appropriation of its mark and the nature of its use in diverting web traffic for a commercial purpose and presumed profit (by way of “click-through” revenue ) support inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in and use of the DARAPRIM trademark and consequently of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant cites Hilton Group plc v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0244; Nintendo of America v. Pokemonplanet.net, Jerry Radl, and Fusion Media Solutions, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1020; and General Electric Company v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No. D2000-1727, in support of these contentions.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel bases its findings and conclusions of the background facts set out above. In particular it finds that the Complainant has rights and interests in the trademark DARAPRIM and that the trademark is, by reason of its widespread and longstanding use, well known generally and known to the Respondent in particular.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s DARAPRIM trademark, no account being taken of the gTLD suffix “.com”. See, e.g., Morgan Freeman v. Mighty LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0263.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It accepts the Complainant’s contentions, particularly in view of the Complainant’s mark being a “fancy” word, that the circumstances of long and widespread use and registration of the DARAPRIM trademark before registration of the disputed domain name raise a presumption that the Respondent knew of and adopted the trademark purposefully and that in the face of those circumstances the Respondent bears a burden to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has proffered nothing to discharge that burden. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case No. D2003-0174.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that in the circumstances where the Respondent has knowingly and illegitimately appropriated the whole of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and made use of it in connection with a commercial website, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., PepsiCo Inc v. "null", aka Alexander Zhavoronkov, WIPO Case No. D2002-0562; and General Electric Company v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No. D2000-1727.

7. Decision

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 name <daraprim.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Simon Minahan
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 24, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/