Meditech Human Pharmaceutical v. Napat Sorn / la et al.
Claim Number: FA2112001977779
Complainant: Meditech Human Pharmaceutical of Mumbai, International, India.
Respondent: Data Protected Data Protected / Data Protected of Toronto, Ontario, CA.
Napat Sorn / la of bangkok, TH.
serivce of bangkok, Thailand.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Public Interest Registry
Registrars: NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 21, 2021
Commencement: December 21, 2021
Response Date: December 27, 2021
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.
URS Procedure¶1.2.6. requires that, to obtain an order that a contested domain name should be suspended, Complainant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following:
1. the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that the mark is in current use;
2. Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name;
and
3. the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Identity or Confusing Similarity
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a registration for the trademark WWW.LAANABOLIC.COM, which is on file with the Ministry of Commerce & Industry of India as Registry No. 4,315,377, registered October 9, 2019, for goods and services in International Class 5 [pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations, etc.], and that the mark is in current use.
For its part, the pertinent WHOIS record shows that Respondent registered the domain name <laanabolic.org> on April 1, 2021.
Turning to the essence of the question of identity/confusing similarity, we conclude that the <laanabolic.org> domain name is substantively identical, and, therefore, confusingly similar, to Complainant’s WWW.LAANABOLIC.COM trademark. The domain name merely deletes the prefix “www” from the front of the mark, reduces the remaining characters from upper to lower case and substitutes the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” for the original “.COM.” Respondent’s deletion of the “www” prefix is of no consequence to our analysis because, as prior panels have found, the letters "www" have no distinguishing capacity in the context of domain names. As to Respondent’s change of case for the remainder of the domain name, it does nothing to affect the phonetic sound or meaning of the original. As well, Respondent’s substitution of one gTLD for another in framing the domain name is disregarded in assessing the result because every domain name requires some gTLD or other TLD.
Moreover, Respondent does not deny that the WWW.LAANABOLIC.COM mark is in current use.
Accordingly, we find confusing similarity in the domain name registered by Respondent and current use of the mark by Complainant sufficient to confer upon it standing to pursue its Complaint in this forum.
Registrant’s Rights or interests
There is nothing in the evidence before us suggesting that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant in any way, or that Complainant has authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name incorporating either the whole or the dominant portion of its registered WWW.LAANABOLIC.COM mark, or that Respondent has been commonly known by the contested <laanabolic.org> domain name.
Further to the question whether Respondent has any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name, Complainant asserts both that the content once hosted on the website resolving from it is no longer directly accessible there, but it is accessible by resort to conventional search engines, and that Respondent’s use of the domain name is intended to defraud unsuspecting Internet users who are led to believe that they have found Complainant’s official site. Importantly, Respondent does not deny this accusation.
Instead, Respondent counters that whatever content appeared on the website resolving from <laanabolic.org> must be the fault of a bot operated by Google.com. Respondent further contends that “We used to be laeinfo.com,” and that the website once resolving from that domain name “is not currently operating.” In fact, however, the content of that website is accessible online, and it reveals that Respondent was, while <laeinfo.com> was active, evidently doing business in competition with that of Complainant. The most telling evidence in Respondent’s Response, however, is perhaps the following declaration:
They [Complainant] are … not a legitimate company…. They cannot take legal action [against Respondent] because they’re not an official company.
While it is impossible to divine from Respondent’s pleading what, precisely, is meant by the suggestion that Complainant is not a “legitimate” or “official” company, we take note of the fact that Complainant obtained a trademark registration from the responsible department of government in India, where Complainant is domiciled, and that it did so under the official name “Meditech Human Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.”
Finally, under this head of the URS Procedure, we are unable to imagine any legitimate reason why Respondent would have been induced to abandon its former online identity (its <laeinfo.com> domain name) in favor of one (<laanabolic.org>) that is a virtual copy of that of a business competitor.
It thus appears that, notwithstanding its protestations of innocence, Respondent has launched a scheme to assume Complainant’s online identity in order to deceive and defraud Internet users seeking Complainant’s goods, evidently proceeding upon the presumption that it could do so with impunity because Complainant would, for reasons not specified in the record before us, be unable to secure legal relief from that scheme.
From all of this we conclude that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the challenged <laanabolic.org> domain name, in that, it has not been commonly known by that domain name, and that its employment of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
Bad Faith
Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that make it clear that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure¶5.7.
Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the above discussion of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests accruing to the benefit of Respondent from the facts presented in the Complaint and Response filed in this proceeding.
To this we would add that it is plain from the record that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the WWW.LAANABOLIC.COM mark when it registered the <laanabolic.org> domain name, which further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering it.
We conclude from a review of the submissions of the parties that the Complaint was not brought in abuse of this proceeding and that it contains no evident material falsehoods.
We therefore find that Complainant has proven all three required elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence, and we ORDER that the registration of the domain name <laanabolic.org> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its term.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: January 3, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page