Case No Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
D2009-0635 tamiflu75.com
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG Protected Domain Services/MediaTec Co.Ltd. - TRANSFER
01-Jul-2009

Analysis

TAMIFLU Fights Off Cybersquatters Too

08-Jul-2009 07:37am by DefendMyDomain

About author

Darren Spielman
http://www.DefendMyDomain.com

In the recent domain name dispute of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Protected Domain Services/MediaTec Co.Ltd., Sandro Zeller (WIPO D2009-0635, July 1, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.tamiflu75.com. Respondent is the well known manufacturer of the medical treatment TAMIFLU. Considering the onset of swine flu, it is only appropriate that this case was recently decided. Respondent maintains a web site promoting the product at www.tamiflu.com.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the elements the Panel provided a quick and short review. The Panel found that the domain included all of Respondent’s mark TAMIFLU with the additional number “75″ added at the end of the top level domain. The Panel explained that 75 is the common dosage amount of the medicine. The Panel found that Complainant satisfied this prong.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained:

The Complainant has demonstrated that the website located at the Disputed Domain Name used to display information and links to services competing with those of the Complainant. The Panel does not find such use of the Disputed Domain Name to be bona fide in the context of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in this case.

The Panel found that Complainant satisfied this element as well. Moving to the final element, bad faith the Panel found that Respondent was using the domain to mislead and confuse Internet users to competing Internet site links, which included the use of the packaging of Complainant’s TAMIFLU product.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all three elements and ordered to TRANSFER the domain.

Comments

Leave a comment

Log in or create an account