Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v. ANTHONY CILLA
Claim Number: FA1404001556416
Complainant: Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals of Ringaskiddy, Ireland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Pfizer Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: ANTHONY CILLA of Scottsdale, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GURU Registry
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 29, 2014
Commencement: April 29, 2014
Default Date: May 14, 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.
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.
Complainant is the owner by assignment of United States Federal Registered Trademark LIPITOR, registration number 2,074,561. The application was filed on November 30, 1995. The mark was registered on June 24 in international class 5, for “pharmaceutical preparations for use in the treatment of cardiovascular disorders and cholesterol reduction” claiming first use in commerce on January 28, 1997.
The disputed domain name was registered in February 2014.
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
Complainant is a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and the owner of the above US trademark registration. Complainant has provided clear and convincing evidence that is currently using the LIPITOR trademark in connection with a prescription pharmaceutical product (atorvastatin calcium) for the treatment of cardiovascular disorders and cholesterol reduction.
The disputed domain name <lipitor.guru> is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark LIPITOR. In the circumstance of the present application the gTLD extension <.guru> may be ignored for the purpose of comparison.
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2]
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent commonly known by the LIPITOR or LIPITOR.GURU name. The WHOIS record for <lipitor.guru> lists Anthony Cilla as the registrant. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s LIPITOR mark in a domain name or otherwise. Complainant does not sponsor or endorse Respondent in any manner.
The disputed domain name points to a webpage inter alia providing links to sponsored listings related to health care issues. The webpage also offers to sell the domain name or help a purchaser turn it into a website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and wrongfully misappropriates the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark. Based on the foregoing, it is obvious that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name <lipitor.guru>.
In the circumstances the burden of proof shifts to Respondent who had failed to file a Response or other communication. Respondent has failed to discharge its burden of proof that he has legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3]
The disputed domain name was registered in February 2014, more than 15 years after Complainant’s LIPITOR mark was first registered in the U.S. Thus, Respondent was on constructive notice of Complainant’s registered trademark. Because of the unique and distinctive character of the LIPITOR trademark it is probable that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and rights when he applied to register the disputed domain name.
Respondent clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name for a commercial purpose in the knowledge that the registration and use would take predatory advantage of Complainant’s trademark rights. The webpage has an option of purchasing the domain name,
This Examiner finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a third party, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Furthermore this Examiner finds that by using the domain name as the address of a website with healthcare related sponsored links in the manner shown in the evidence submitted by Complainant, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s LIPITOR 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.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: May 14, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page