CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA2002001883550
Complainant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Sheridan Ross P.C. of Denver, Colorado, USA.
Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: BestTLD Pty Ltd
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Richard W. Hill, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 17, 2020
Commencement: February 19, 2020
Default Date: March 5, 2020
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the 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.
Findings of fact
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide comprised of or incorporating “CVS” for a variety of goods and services, including but not limited to retail pharmacy sales services and related pharmacy, health, beauty and general consumer products. Complainant’s trademark rights date back to 1971.
All of the disputed domain names were in the period from January 5, 2020 to January 9, 2020, and all use the same privacy protection service in Panama.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Registrant to use its mark.
All the disputed domain names redirect to the same website that displays Complainant’s CVS mark and invites users to fill in an alleged survey.
The Examiner finds that all the disputed domain names were registered by the same or related Respondent(s)
Legal discussion
URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the three elements listed below 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.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[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.
The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark
The disputed domain names all include Complainant’s CVS mark, plus numbers, letters or descriptive/generic words such as “survey,” “coupon,” “win”, “prize,” “ticket” or variations thereof. It is well established under the UDRP that adding numbers, letters, and/or descriptive/generic terms to a Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
Consequently, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name
The Registrant of all the domain names is a privacy service. Consequently, the Examiner finds that Registrant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
All the disputed domain names resolve to the same website, which displays Complainant’s mark and a survey, alleging that a prize/gift can be won by filling out the survey allegedly regarding Complainant’s services; Registrant thus operates a phishing scheme to collect consumer’s personal data. Passing off as Complainant, in particular in furtherance of a phishing scheme, indicates that Registrant does not have rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
Under the circumstances, the Examiner finds that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain names.
The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith
As already noted, Registrant intentionally attempts to attract for commercial gain, internet users to Registrant’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s websites, and the content on those websites, by using Complainant’s CVS marks thereby disrupting and diminishing Complainant’s business. This is well understood to constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.
Further, given the number of the domains registered, Registrant has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Registration of three domain names that were confusingly similar to a mark has been found to constitute a pattern of conduct, see Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Domain Manager, PageUp Communications, D2003-0602 (WIPO, Sept. 29, 2003).
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it did not contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that 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.
<cvssupwins.best><cvssurvey.best><cvssurveyprize.best><cvssurveyprizes.best><cvssurveys.best><cvssurveywin.best><cvssurveywins.best><cvssw.best><cvssw1s.best><cvssweep.best><cvssweep38.best><cvssweeps.best><cvssweeps38.best><cvsswooprwd.best><cvsswooprwds.best><cvstick2win.best><cvstick2wins.best><cvsticket2redeem.best><cvsticket2win.best><cvstickets2redeem.best><cvstickets2win.best><cvsticketwin.best><cvsticketwins.best><cvstickt.best><cvstickts.best><usemycvs.best><win2dayredcvs.best><winbigcvs.best><wincvs.best><winnerswinnercvs.best><winnerwinnercvs.best><winningcvs.best><winningscvs.best><winningslotcvs.best><winningslotscvs.best><winsbigcvs.best><winscvs.best><winszonecvs.best><winticketcvs.best><winticketscvs.best><wintimecvs.best><wintimescvs.best><winzonecvs.best><won2daycvs.best><won2sdaycvs.best><woncvs.best><wowrwdcvs.best><wowrwdscvs.best>
Richard W. Hill, Examiner
Dated: March 05, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page