In the recent domain name dispute decision of Pfizer Inc. v. Igor Shorop FA1266024 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.viagra.us. Phizer is the famous pharmaceutical company who markets and sells well-known erection pill VIAGRA. Complainant maintains web sites at www.pfizer.com and www.viagra.com. Respondent failed to respond to the dispute.
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 or is being used in bad faith
In addressing the first element the Panel explained “The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s VIAGRA mark in its entirety with the addition of the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.” The Panel concludes that the addition of the ccTLD is insignificant, rendering Respondent’s <viagra.us> domain name identical to Complainant’s VIAGRA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(I).” The Panel found that Pfizer satisfied the first element.
Moving to the second element, whether the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel noted that Respondent’s failure to respond raises a presumption of lacking such rights. There was no evidence that Respondent owned any trademark rights or was commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally the Panel found:
The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links and advertisements, which divert Internet users to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel presumes that Respondent is generating revenue from such use and therefore finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv), respectively.
Moving to the final element, the Panel found that Respondent’s use of click-through fee links was evidence of bad faith. Additionally the Panel found that since the domain name was identical this was also evidence of bad faith.
Ultimately, the Panel found Phizer satisfied all three elements and ordered the TRANSFER of the disputed domain.
