DECISION

G.D. Searle & Co. v. Vioxx & Celebrex Arthritis Help

Claim Number: FA0210000126831

PARTIES

Complainant is G.D. Searle & Co., Peapack, NJ (“Complainant”) represented by Paul D. McGrady, Jr., of Ladas & Parry.  Respondent is Vioxx & Celebrex Arthritis Help, San Diego, CA (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com>, registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 2, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 2, 2002.

On October 3, 2002, BulkRegister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> is registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On October 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 28, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On November 19, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.”  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE – MARKS OF MULTIPLE PARTIES

The domain name registered by Respondent, <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com>, incorporates the marks of numerous parties and interests.  More specifically, the following drug companies are implicated by way of Respondent’s domain name: G.D. Searle (Complainant) (CELEBREX), and Merck (VIOXX). Due to practical difficulties inherent in the UDRP, cooperative complaint initiation is unlikely and unfeasible.  Because Complainant initiated this dispute prior to any other interested party, it has the opportunity to acquire the domain name, while seeking to protect its CELEBREX mark from an infringing use.  However, due to the procedural complexities presented by the current dispute the following issue must be addressed: that Complainant seeks acquisition of the subject domain name in good faith, and will forfeit its interest in the contested domain name if the other represented marks are infringed upon following a transfer of the domain name registration to Complainant.  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (Complainant’s continuing control of the <viagra-xenical-celebrex-propecia-meridia-zyban.com> domain name is contingent upon good faith possession, and Complainant will forfeit its interest in the domain name if it infringes on the other represented marks).

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant makes the following assertions:

The domain name registered by Respondent, <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CELEBREX mark.

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, G.D. Searle & Co., holds two domestic trademarks for the CELEBREX mark (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,321,622 and 2,307,888). Complainant registered these marks on February 22, 2000 and January 11, 2000, respectively, on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and has used them in commerce since February of 1999. Complainant has also applied for or received trademark registrations in more than 112 countries worldwide.

Complainant adopted the use of its distinctive CELEBREX mark to market “pharmaceutical products in the nature of anti-inflammatory analgesics” in a global campaign for its anti-arthritic medicine. Under the CELEBREX mark, Complainant receives billions of dollars in annual sales.

Respondent, “Vioxx & Celebrex Arthritis Help,” registered the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name on October 31, 2001 and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to make use of the CELEBREX mark for any purpose. Respondent’s website is used to solicit drug orders from Internet users.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in its CELEBREX mark through registration on the Principal Register of the USPTO, as well as by continuous and widespread use of the mark worldwide. Complainant’s use of its internationally recognized and registered CELEBREX mark demonstrates that it has sufficient rights in the mark to bring this Complaint against Respondent. See See Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place).

The domain name registered by Respondent, <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CELEBREX mark. The only difference between Respondent’s domain name and the registered mark of Complainant is the addition of the top-level domain “.com” after the mark, the addition of the descriptive words “arthritis” and “help,” the addition of the article “and,” and addition of the trademark VIOXX. As top-level domain names are a standard feature for any domain name, its addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top-level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to Complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").

The addition of the descriptive words “arthritis” and “help” to Complainant’s registered CELEBREX mark also fail to sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. The dominant feature of the disputed domain name remains Complainant’s distinctive CELEBREX mark, while the words “arthritis” and “help” merely describe the type of product Complainant produces. Furthermore, inserting the article “and” between the words VIOXX and CELEBREX fails to distinguish the subject domain name for similar reasons. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety and deviates only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).

The addition of the registered mark VIOXX to the disputed domain name further increases the likelihood of confusion. Respondent has no rights in this mark and like the word CELEBREX, this word also represents a drug and does not operate as a distinguishing characteristic in the domain name. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Paramount Mktg., FA 118307 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (holding that the addition of other well-known pharmaceutical drug brand names to the <viagra-xenical-propecia-meridia-bontril-phentermine-celebrex.com> domain name does not diminish the capacity of the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users, but actually “adds to the potential to confuse”).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered and distinctive CELEBREX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

The burden of proving a lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name rests initially upon Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii), Respondent can rely on a “bona fide offering of goods or services” connected with the disputed domain name, the fact that it has been “commonly known by the domain name,” or that it is making a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name” to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name. If Complainant rebuts each of these elements, it has satisfied its burden by successfully addressing any of the specified claims Respondent could make under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii), thereby shifting the burden to Respondent. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).

Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint is further evidence of a lack of legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Respondent uses the infringing domain name to solicit drug orders, a type of business that is in Complainant’s same general commercial area. In taking advantage of the disputed domain name’s confusing similarity with Complainant’s registered and distinctive mark, Respondent is opportunistically using Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. It is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) when the holder of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark uses the domain name to divert Internet users to its own competing website for commercial gain. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Mahoney, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (finding Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to solicit pharmaceutical orders without a license or authorization from Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Fred Pelham, FA 117911 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2002) (finding that because Respondent is using the infringing domain name to sell prescription drugs it can be inferred that Respondent is opportunistically using Complainant’s mark in order to attract Internet users to its website); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was not a bona fide offering of goods).

 

Complainant has not given Respondent permission or consent to use its CELEBREX mark. While Respondent’s contact information with the Registrar states that its name is “Vioxx & Celebrex Arthritis Help,” Complainant’s uncontested assertion is that this is not the actual name of Respondent, and that Respondent is not “commonly known by” the name VIOXXANDCELEBREXARTHRITISHELP or <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com>.  Furthermore, as Complainant’s mark is highly distinctive and specifically coined by Complainant, it is doubtful that anyone other than Complainant could claim to be “commonly known by” the name. See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Internet Gambiano Prods., D2002-0325 (WIPO June 20, 2002) (finding that because the VIAGRA mark was clearly well-known at the time of Respondent’s registration of the domain name it can be inferred that Respondent is attempting to capitalize on the confusion created by the domain name’s similarity to the mark). In light of Respondent’s failure to offer evidence suggesting it has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").  

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

While Policy paragraph 4(b) lists four circumstances evidencing bad faith registration and use of a domain name by a respondent, that list not exhaustive. See Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence); see also Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000) (“[J]ust because Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the ‘particular’ circumstances set out in ¶4(b), does not mean that the domain names at issue were not registered in and are not being used in bad faith”).

In determining what circumstances entail bad faith registration, the Panel will look to the “totality of the circumstances” before reaching a conclusion. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”).

Respondent and Complainant operate in a similar commercial area and the Panel presumes that by virtue of the name that was registered, Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark when registering the infringing domain name. Complainant’s registration on the Principle Register of the USPTO of its distinctive CELEBREX mark operates as constructive notice of Complainant’s interest in that mark. Therefore, Respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name despite constructive or actual notice of Complainant’s mark qualifies as evidence of bad faith registration under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).  See Pfizer, Inc. v. Internet Gambiano Prods., D2002-0325 (WIPO June 20, 2002) (finding Respondent “was aware of and had knowledge of” Complainant’s mark when registering the domain name because Complainant’s mark was a coined arbitrary term with no meaning apart from Complainant’s products); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between Complainant’s mark and the content advertised on Respondent’s website was obvious, Respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith when (1) the domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, (2) the mark is a coined word, well-known and in use prior to Respondent’s registration of the domain name, and (3) Respondent fails to allege any good faith basis for use of the domain name).

In this dispute, Respondent was selling drugs using the Internet. By deciding to register the infringing domain name for its business Respondent created a likelihood of confusion as to whether it had any association with Complainant. Respondent used that likelihood of confusion for commercial gain, gaining revenue from online drug sales completed under Complainant’s mark. Using an infringing domain name to profit from confused Internet users evidences bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering the domain name <fossilwatch.com> and using it to sell various watch brands); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created confusion by offering similar products for sale as Complainant). This is especially true when both Respondent and Complainant operate in a similar industry or field. See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith, and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <vioxxandcelebrexarthritishelp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: December 2, 2002.

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1620.html