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

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Intdomain / Apexed

Case No. D2015-1426

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd of Allschwil, Switzerland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Intdomain / Apexed of Burgenland, Austria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <opsumit.biz> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 14, 2015, the Registrar 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 20, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2015.

The Center appointed Wolter Wefers Bettink as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 2015. 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 leading biopharmaceutical company, founded in 1997 and headquartered in Allschwil/Basel, Switzerland, which focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs for diseases with significant unmet medical needs.

The Complainant owns a number of word marks and device marks, consisting of or containing the name OPSUMIT, including international trade mark no. 1084328, registered on June 27, 2011, community trade mark no. 009982588, registered on October 24, 2011 and United States of America trade mark no. 4056510, registered on November 15, 2011 (together hereafter the “Trade Marks”).

The Complainant has over 30 operative affiliates around the world including in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, and a number of European Union countries, which provide distribution, sales, and marketing services.

The Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2015.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

According to the Complainant, the Domain Name contains the Trade Marks in their entirety and is therefore identical to the Trade Marks.

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way and the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Trade Marks in any manner, including in domain names. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant points out that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, which change on a regular basis, some of which contain information on health conditions and thereby directly compete with the Complainant's business. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites and that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, which could otherwise constitute a right or legitimate interest under the Policy.

The Complainant submits that its Trade Marks are well known and that the Respondent admitted in pre Complaint correspondence that it registered the Domain Name because it is a famous trade mark that it tried to sell, which demonstrates a knowledge of and familiarity with the Trade Marks and the Complainant’s business. The Complainant states that it first tried to contact the Respondent on July 1, 2015, through a cease-and-desist letter sent by email, requesting a voluntary transfer of the Domain Name.

In response, the Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale for an amount of USD 1,590. In addition, the Complainant submits, in response to a further email from the Complainant, the Respondent replied by stating, “[a]ll domains we registered are trademark of some famous companies, and for sale. So they need to buy it or dispute it, no other way.”

According to the Complainant, this shows that the Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale in an amount that far exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the Domain Name. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Trade Marks by using the Domain Name, which contains the Trade Marks in their entirety, to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services, and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the Domain Name and the website to which it connects.

Finally, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has previously been involved in a number of UDRP cases, which provides evidence of the pattern of cybersquatting in which the Respondent is engaging, while the Respondent has registered over 200 other domain names containing famous trade marks.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks. The Trade Marks consist of the name OPSUMIT which is included in its entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” does not change the overall impression, as the gTLD suffix in the Domain Name may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test, since it is a technical registration requirement (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or, in any case, confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). Based on the evidence and the undisputed submissions of the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Trade Marks in the Domain Name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.

Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name for a pay-per-click website, containing links to websites with information on goods competing with those of the Complainant does not constitute a “bona fide offering of goods or services”, nor a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” (see Sanofi v. Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2014-0829 and the cases cited in WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.6).

In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the correspondence provided by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that at the time of registration of the Domain Name the Respondent was been aware of the Trade Marks as it has stated that all the domain names it has registered “are trademark of some famous companies”. This statement is supported by the long list of domain names containing well-known third party trade marks and by other UDRP cases in which the Respondent has been involved, such as Pfizer Inc. Wyeth LLC v. Intdomain, Apexed, WIPO Case No. D2015-0187, and Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Intdomain / Apexed, WIPO Case No. D2014-1316. This also evidences that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of domain name registrations to prevent trade mark owners from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name.

Furthermore, the statement that all the domain names are for sale and the offer to sell the Domain Name for USD 1,590, which amount is well in excess of initial registration costs, shows that the Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a third party.

On the basis of all of the above, the Panel concludes that the 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 Domain Name <opsumit.biz> be transferred to the Complainant.

Wolter Wefers Bettink
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2015

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/