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

Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2020-2368

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) and Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Milen Radumilo, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <insidewyeth.com> is registered with Domain Rouge, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2020. On September 11, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 2020, 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 Complainants on September 25, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on September 29, 2020.

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 October 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 26, 2020.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on December 14, 2020. 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 Complainants, Pfizer and Wyeth, are both corporations existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States. Wyeth is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer. The Complainants are manufacturers and suppliers of pharmaceutical products worldwide.

The Complainants are the owners of numerous trademark registrations for the mark WYETH. Those registrations include, for example:

- European Union trademark number 002848414 for the word mark WYETH, registered on June 16, 2004 in International Classes 5 and 10
- Romania trademark number 018004 for the word mark WYETH, registered on May 6, 1994 in International Classes 5, 10, 29 and 30.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 12, 2020.

According to evidence submitted by the Complainants, the disputed domain name has been used for purposes including the following:

- On July 2, 2020, to resolve to a website which appeared to contain links to pharmacy services and specific pharmaceuticals for sale online
- On August 24, 2020, to resolve to a website which appeared to offer a Google Chrome extension for download.

The Complainant also exhibits a report from Network Solutions dated August 21, 2020 indicating that the disputed domain name was available for immediate purchase for the price of USD 1,488.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainants submit that Pfizer Inc. is among the largest pharmaceutical enterprises in the world with global operations in more than 125 countries, and that Wyeth, acquired by Pfizer Inc. in 2009, has a long history of leadership in pharmaceutical and nutritional product development around the globe. The Complainants state that their WYETH trademark has been used since 1860 and that Wyeth is a leading supplier of nutrition, prescription and non-prescription drugs. The Complainants provide evidence of registrations for the WYETH trademark in numerous territories around the world and say that Pfizer maintains operations in more than 125 countries. The Complainants submit that, as a result of these matters, the trademark WYETH is widely recognized as identifying the Complainants and their products and commands substantial commercial goodwill.

The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their WYETH trademark. They contend that the disputed domain name incorporates that trademark in full, together with the addition of a descriptive word, “inside”, which cannot be effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from their trademark. They also point to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct to a website offering pharmaceutical products, which they submit adds to the likelihood of confusion.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. They state that they have never authorized the Respondent to use their WYETH trademark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. They contend that, on the contrary, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in an illegitimate and fraudulent manner, to benefit from the Complainants’ goodwill by misrepresenting a connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainants.

The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. They say that it is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainants’ trademark, both because of the longstanding reputation of that mark and because the disputed domain name has been used to link to pharmaceutical products. They submit that the disputed domain name has been used to mislead Internet users into believing it is associated with the Complainants and that the Respondent has attempted to capitalize on the Complainants’ goodwill by offering pay-per-click (“PPC”) links and potentially harmful software, as well as offering the disputed domain name for sale for a sum clearly in excess of the costs of registration.

The Complainants request the transfer of the disputed domain name to Pfizer.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainants are required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainants have demonstrated that they are the owners of registered trademark rights in the mark WYETH. The disputed domain name comprises the term “wyeth” preceded by the dictionary word “inside”. The Complainants’ trademark is therefore recognizable within the disputed domain name and the Panel finds that the additional term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and that trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainants’ submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel accepts the Complainants’ submissions that their trademark WYETH is widely recognized by the public in connection with pharmaceutical products supplied by the Complainants and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of a website including PPC links relating to similar products. The Respondent has advanced no reason for its registration of a domain name which includes the Complainants’ trademark WYETH together with the dictionary term “inside” and the Panel therefore concludes, on balance, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of misrepresenting a commercial connection between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trademark.

The Panel finds further that, having created a misleading impression of a connection with the Complainants’ trademark, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s commercial goodwill by way of PPC links and a software download of an unknown and potentially harmful nature. The Panel finds in particular that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

The Respondent has also offered the disputed domain name for sale for a price likely in excess of its costs of registration.

In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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, <insidewyeth.com>, be transferred to the Complainant Pfizer.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: December 28, 2020

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/