About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Ebabil Yilmaz

Case No. D2018-2065

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Tarrytown, New York, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, LLP, USA.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, USA / Ebabil Yilmaz of Cankaya, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <regeneronontarget.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 7, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 12, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 13, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 14, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 5, 2018.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on October 12, 2018. 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 the owner of the REGENERON trademark, which has been in use since 1988 in connection with the research and development of pharmaceutical products and the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products.

Details of extensive protection of its REGENERON trademark internationally, including USA Registration No. 1654595, dating from August 20, 1990, have been supplied to the Panel.

The Panel has also been supplied with evidence of the renown of the Complainant’s REGENERON trademark, in the form of various awards in trade and scientific journals.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2018, and resolves to a website offering to sell the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its REGENERON trademark, containing its REGENERON trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the words “on target”.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which the Respondent could own or use any domain names incorporating its REGENERON trademark.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in connection with a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for the excessive sum of USD 950.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top‑Level Domain (“gtld”) indicator is generally irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s REGENERON trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the words “on target”. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy, with which the Panel agrees, that the mere addition of descriptive or non distinctive elements do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that the words “on target” are clearly descriptive or non distinctive, and the Complainant’s trademark remains easily recognizable in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. As noted below, the Panel does not consider the Respondent’s offering of the disputed domain name for sale to give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy appear to apply.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. In the circumstance of the present case, in which the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements, the Panel believes that the Respondent has clearly had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and, in consequence, the Panel regards it as appropriate to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and so finds.

The offer for sale of the disputed domain name for USD 950, is regarded by the Panel as excessive. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy, with which the Panel agrees, that the offer for sale of a disputed domain name for a sum greatly in excess of the costs can, in itself, justify a finding of use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Panel believes that the circumstances of the present case are such as to justify a finding of use in bad faith, and so finds (see paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <regeneronontarget.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: October 26, 2018.

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