WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

PLIVA Hravtska D.o.o v. Park HyungJin

Case No. D2020-0657

1. The Parties

The Complainant is PLIVA Hravtska D.o.o, Croatia, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Park HyungJin, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sumamed.com> is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 18, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 March 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 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 Complainant is a member of one of the largest global pharmaceutical companies. It owns the trademark SUMAMED, which is the subject of International Trademark Reg. No. 558589, which was registered on September 3, 1990. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 21, 2007. The Respondent is no stranger to UDRP proceedings, having been found by other panels to have engaged in cybersquatting. The Complainant cites no less than a half dozen WIPO cases in the Complaint in which the Respondent registered a domain name using others’ well-known trademarks, and lists several other cases in an Annex to the Complaint. Soon after registering the disputed domain name in this case, the Respondent put it up for sale on Sedo.com. The Respondent currently publishes pay-per-click advertisements at the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the mark SUMAMED. The mark is subject to registrations, and has been in widespread use for many years. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and is in this manner identical to the SUMAMED mark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded for the purpose of comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant will be successful under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant asserts, among other things, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the words comprising the disputed domain name, and the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (i.e., neither providing sponsored links, nor offering the disputed domain name for sale is a bona fide use). The Complainant has not authorized the use of its SUMAMED trademark in the disputed domain name. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second Policy element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has demonstrated rights in the mark SUMAMED and it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of those rights when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent bears no relationship to the SUMAMED trademark and that there has been shown no other meaning of the disputed domain name except for referring to the Complainant’s trademarks. Accordingly, the facts show that there is no way in which the Respondent could use the disputed domain name legitimately. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to provide a website with pay-per-click links, and by offering the disputed domain name for sale. Further, the demonstrated pattern of the Respondent’s cybersquatting supports a finding of bad faith. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third Policy element.

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 <sumamed.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2020