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

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Domains

Case No. D2011-1928

1. The Parties

The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.

The Respondent is Domains of Tokyo, Japan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <buy-valium-online-rx.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2011. On November 8, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Wild West Domains, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 8, 2011, Wild West Domains, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Domains 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 November 14, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 4, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 5, 2011.

The Center appointed Gunnar Karnell as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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 one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals.

The disputed domain name <buy-valium-online-rx.com> was registered by the Respondent on October 25, 2011.

The Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant bases its Complaint on its trademark VALIUM. Registrations of the mark, presently in over a hundred countries, go back to October 20, 1961, hence predating the registration of the disputed domain name. The trademark, designating a sedative and anxiolytic drug belonging to the benzodiazepine family, is notoriously well-known all over the world.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark to which are added the descriptive terms “buy” and “online” as well a “rx” that means prescription medicines, and hyphens, none of which distinguishes the disputed domain name from the trademark or obviates ascertainment of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has not consented to the use of its trademark in the disputed domain name. The Respondent uses it to direct Internet users to websites which are search engines composed of sponsored links. The Respondent’s reason in registering the disputed domain name is to benefit from the reputation of the trademark VALIUM and illegitimately trade on its fame for commercial gain and profit.

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, because at the time of its registration the Respondent must have known about the Complainants trademark VALIUM, and the disputed domain name is used in bad faith since the Respondent’s website evidences that the Respondent intentionally attempts for commercial purposes to attract Internet users to it by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of products or services posted on it or linked to the website. The Respondent is intentionally misleading consumers so as to attract them to other websites in belief that the websites behind links are associated or recommended by the Complainant. Consequently, the Respondent may generate unjustified revenues for each “click-through” by online consumers over the sponsored links, capitalizing on the VALIUM trademark’s reputation.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted complaint by written evidence and reference to earlier UDRP decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant’s trademark VALIUM has been proven by ample written documentation to have been registered and well-known worldwide at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel sees no reason to pay regard to the elements in the disputed domain name that surround the trademark. The similarity of the trademark and the disputed domain name as registered and in use is in this Panel’s view obviously confusing.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and there has been no rebuttal by the Respondent. Nothing in the case file provided by the Center to this Panel gives reason to believe that the Respondent has or has had any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Absent any indication in the case file of elements that might tell against giving credence to the Complainant’s assertions regarding facts leading up to its conclusions that the disputed domain name <buy-valium-online-rx.com> has been registered and is used in bad faith, the Panel confirms that the conditions about bad faith registration and bad faith use for a transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant are satisfied.

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 <buy-valium-online-rx.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gunnar Karnell
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 12, 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/