Pfizer Inc. v. Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy
Claim Number: FA1408001573705
Complainant: Pfizer Inc. of NY, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: None
Respondent: Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy of San Mateo, California, United States.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DOTSTRATEGY CO.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Bruce E. O'Connor, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: August 6, 2014
Commencement: August 7, 2014
Default Date: August 22, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,952,026, registered May 17, 2005, (the "Trademark"), which protects the trademark PFIZER for a full line of medicated and pharmaceutical preparations. The registration claims a first use date of 1932. Complainant uses the Trademark in conjunction with such goods, as evidenced by Complainant's web site at www.pfizer.com.
Respondent uses the registered domain name at a passive parking site that contains no links to other web sites or advertisements other than the logo of the Registrar.
Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the first element of the URS. The registered domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark that is being used by the Complainant, being distinguished only by the descriptive top level domain ".buzz" that connotes news or information.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the second element of the URS.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the third element of the URS. The registered domain name implies news or information about Complainant and its well-known Trademark. Respondent's failure to submit a response and the use of a privacy service to hide its identity are powerful indicators of Respondent's intent to attract users to Respondent's web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<pfizer.buzz>
Bruce E. O'Connor, Examiner
Dated: August 22, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page