DECISION

 

Sanofi-Aventis v. Conciergebrain.com

Claim Number: FA0510000571944

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is Sanofi-Aventis (“Complainant”), represented by Baila H. Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036.  Respondent is Conciergebrain.com (“Respondent”), 18543 Devonshire St #120, Northridge, CA 91234.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

 

The domain names at issue are <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 3, 2005; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 5, 2005.

 

On October 4, 2005, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On October 11, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 11, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).

 

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 November 4, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

 

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMBIEN mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered or used the <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant, Sanofi-Aventis, is the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with a business presence in more than 50 countries.  Complainant holds a trademark registration for the AMBIEN mark (Reg. No. 1,808,770), registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on December 7, 1993 and renewed on December 7, 2003.  AMBIEN is one of Complainant’s three flagship products and is used for the short-term treatment of insomnia.  Complainant also holds the registration to the <ambien.com> domain name.

 

Respondent, Conciergebrain.com, registered the <buy-ambien-cheap.us> domain name on December 29, 2004, the <order-ambien.us> domain name on January 7, 2005, the <purchase-ambien.us> domain name on January 7, 2005, the <ambien-tablet.us> domain name on December 29, 2004, and the <ambien-com.us> domain name on December 29, 2004.  All of the disputed domain names resolve to similar websites, offering sales of the AMBIEN product in the main website window.  Additionally, each website has a left banner that offers links to other drugs, including a link to “Sonata,” a drug offered by a third-party to compete with Complainant’s AMBIEN product.

 

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(f), 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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has evidenced its rights in the AMBIEN mark by proffering its USPTO registration.  Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). 

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMBIEN mark.  The only differences between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s mark are the addition of hyphens, the addition of the words “buy” and “cheap,”  “order,” “purchase,” “tablet,” or “com,” and the addition of the “.us” top-level domain, which do not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.  See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has not licensed Respondent to sell Complainant’s products.  There is nothing in the record, including the WHOIS registration information for the domain names, which suggests that Respondent holds a trademark registration similar to the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 

 

Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s marks to sell Complainant’s goods as well as competitors’ goods.  The Panel finds that appropriating another’s mark to sell its goods as well as its competitors’ goods is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of UDRP ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to sell Complainant’s goods without authorization.  The Panel finds that Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain names to create confusion for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Utensilerie Assoc. S.p.A. v. C & M, D2003-0159 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2003) (“The contents of the website, offering Usag products, together with the domain name may create the (incorrect) impression that Respondent is either the exclusive distributor or a subsidiary of Complainant, or at the very least that Complainant has approved its use of the domain name.”). 

 

Respondent is also appropriating Complainant’s marks to offer links to Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel finds that appropriating one’s mark to lead consumers to its competitors is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See G.D. Searle & Co. v. 24-7-Commerce.com, FA 114707 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2002) (finding that although the respondent failed to provide evidence of a plan to use its domain name, the panel inferred that the respondent registered the domain name for ultimate use as an online pharmacy because the domain name incorporated marks of competing pharmaceutical products). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

 

Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <buy-ambien-cheap.us>, <order-ambien.us>, <purchase-ambien.us>, <ambien-tablet.us>, and <ambien-com.us> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated: November 18, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page