Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Orphan Medical, Inc. v. Bobby Charlton
Claim Number: FA0205000112608
PARTIES
Complainant
is Orphan Medical, Inc., Minnetonka,
MN (“Complainant”) represented by Marsha
Stolt, of Fish & Richardson P.C. Respondent is Bobby Charlton, Chennai, IN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <xyrem.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
James
Alan Crary as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 30, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on May 1, 2002.
On
May 2, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <xyrem.com> is
registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network Solutions,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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
May 2, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 22,
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@xyrem.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
June 3, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
Alan Crary 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
disputed domain name <xyrem.com> is identical to XYREM, a mark in
which Complainant holds rights.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a pharmaceutical company
that developed a drug to treat narcolepsy, which it coined XYREM. Complainant applied for a trademark with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office for the XYREM mark in 1998, which was
approved
on June 1, 1999 (Reg. No. 2249959).
Complainant also owns registrations in Europe and Japan for its XYREM
mark. Complainant’s XYREM mark is
well-known within and outside the pharmaceutical industry, particularly because
of the publicity associated
with the chemical Sodium Oxybate, a Schedule 1
substance, included in the XYREM drug.
Respondent registered the domain name <xyrem.com>
on November 9, 2000. Respondent
briefly used the disputed domain name to operate a website that provided
information and criticism about Complainant’s
XYREM drug without authorization
from Complainant. Respondent, however,
has not actively used the disputed domain name in connection with a website for
over a year.
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
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(2)
the 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 and/or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name <xyrem.com>
is identical to Complainant’s XYREM mark because the addition of the generic
top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in a Policy ¶
4(a)(i) analysis. See Pomellato S.P.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
“.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also
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 Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Complainant has demonstrated its rights
to and interests in the XYREM mark. Because Respondent has not submitted a
Response in this
proceeding, the Panel may presume it has no such rights or
interests in the disputed domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted
to make
all inferences in favor of Complainant. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant
to be deemed true).
Respondent’s brief use of the disputed
domain name to divert and confuse Internet traffic for the purpose of inseminating
information
about Complainant’s product, without authorization, did not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or service pursuant to Policy
¶
4(c)(i). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive,
FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000) (finding that “unauthorized providing
of information and services under a mark owned by
a third party cannot be said
to be the bona fide offering of goods or services”); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc.,
FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial
use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a
legitimate use of the domain name); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9,
2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its
own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
Respondent’s brief use of the disputed
domain name did not constitute a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii) because
Complainant’s entire XYREM mark is incorporated in the domain
name that is associated with a website critiquing Complainant’s XYREM
drug. See Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, FA 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24,
2000) (holding that in order to qualify as a protected ‘parody’ which would
confer rights or
a legitimate interest, the domain name itself must signify
critical purposes, as opposed to imitation of the service mark); see also
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law
Firm, D2000-0615 (WIPO Aug. 3, 2000) (finding that establishing a
legitimate free speech/complaint site does not give rights to use a
famous mark
in its entirety); see also Weekley
Homes, L.P. v. Fix My House Or Else?, FA 96609 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18,
2001) (finding that establishment of a website containing criticism is not a legitimate
use of
the <davidweekleyhome.com> domain name because the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVID WEEKLEY
HOMES mark).
Moreover, Respondent’s current passive
holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of
goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero,
D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where
Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint
and made no use of the
domain name in question); see also Ritz-Carlton
Hotel v. Club Car Executive, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that
prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has not used the domain
names
in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods and services).
Respondent is not commonly known by XYREM
or <xyrem.com> and is only known to this Panel as Bobby
Charlton. Therefore, Respondent has no
rights in the disputed domain name because Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) has not been
satisfied. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also
Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied
for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in respect of <xyrem.com>, and that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name after Complainant had adopted, used, and secured a federal trademark
registration. Also, Complainant’s XYREM
mark received considerable publicity concerning efforts to gain FDA approval
for sale of the XYREM drug
before Respondent registered the disputed domain
name. Hence, Respondent is considered
to have had constructive knowledge about Complainant’s rights in the XYREM mark
when it registered
the disputed domain name; thus, the registration was in bad
faith. Moreover, Respondent not only
had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights but Respondent had actual
knowledge. Respondent’s registration of
the disputed domain name, comprised only of Complainant’s XYREM mark, and
subsequent use for a criticism
website evidence actual knowledge of Complainant’s
rights in XYREM. Therefore,
Respondent’s registration with actual and/or constructive knowledge of
Complainant’s rights constitutes bad faith as Respondent’s
use infringes upon
Complainant’s goodwill. See Paws, Inc. v. Odie, FA 96206 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 8, 2001) ("Given the uniqueness and the extreme international
popularity of the [ODIE] mark,
the Respondent knew or should have known that
registering the domain name in question would infringe upon the Complainant's
goodwill");
see also Victoria's
Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in
light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual
or
constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered
the disputed domain name and such knowledge constituted
bad faith); see also
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher,
D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and
constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given
the world-wide
prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad
faith).
Respondent’s registration and use,
despite its current inactive use, of <xyrem.com> constitutes bad
faith because Complainant’s XYREM mark is so unique and distinctive so as to
preclude any plausible explanation for
registration and use. See Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000)
(finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable
possibility, and
no evidence from which to infer that the domain name was selected
at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028
(WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith when (1) the domain name contains the
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); see
also Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Koch,
FA 95688 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2000) (“the selection of a domain name
<northwest-airlines.com> which entirely incorporates
the name of the
world’s fourth largest airline could not have been done in good faith”).
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xyrem.com>
domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
James Alan Crary, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/835.html