WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Sarah Hampton

Case No. DCO2020-0070

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Israel, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Sarah Hampton, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tevapharmaceutical.co> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2020. On October 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 19, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent, and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 8, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 11, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 November 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 7, 2020.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 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 pharmaceutical company. The Complainant is the owner of the mark TEVA, registered, inter alia in the United States trademark registration 1567918 on November 28, 1989. The Complainant owns the domain name <teva.co>.

The Domain Name registered on July 31, 2020 has been linked to a site offering the Domain Name for sale for $1,995.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the distinctive mark TEVA, registered, inter alia in the Unites States trademark registration 1567918 on November 28, 1989. The Complainant owns the domain name <teva.co>.

The Domain Name registered in 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy containing this mark in its entirety and merely adding the dictionary word “pharmaceutical” and the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co”.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Domain Name links to a site that offers the Domain Name for sale for $1,995. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith with knowledge of the Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s TEVA mark (registered in the United States for pharmaceuticals since 1989), the dictionary word “pharmaceutical”, and the ccTLD “.co”.

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a dictionary word to a complainant's mark. The ccTLD “.co” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. The Panel agrees that the addition of the word “pharmaceutical” and the ccTLD “.co” to the Complainant's TEVA mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trademark pursuant to the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TEVA registered mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.

An offer to sell a domain name containing a third party’s trademark for a sum in excess of likely registration costs can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in order to disrupt the Complainant’s business and/or to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant. As previously noted, the Domain Name has been offered for sale generally on the site attached to it for $1,995, a sum in excess of likely costs of registration. The addition of the dictionary word “pharmaceutical” in the Domain Name is evidence that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant in order to illegitimately capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark rights by effectively impersonating or suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

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 <tevapharmaceutical.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: January 4, 2021