DECISION

Canada Drugs.com Partnership, carrying on business as CanadaDrugs.com v. Domain Asia Ventures

Claim Number:  FA0404000263171

PARTIES

Complainant is Canada Drugs.com Partnership, carrying on business as CanadaDrugs.com (“Complainant”), represented by Troy Harwood-Jones,  24 Terracon Place, Winnipeg, MB, R2J 4G7, Canada.  Respondent is Domain Asia Ventures (“Respondent”), 255 Xiaoxue Road, Xiamen, Fujian, China 361001.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwcanadadrugs.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 26, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 27, 2004.

On April 26, 2004, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwcanadadrugs.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On May 4, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 24, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwwcanadadrugs.com by e-mail.

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 June 1, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq.,  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 for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANADADRUGS.COM and CANADA DRUGS marks.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, Canada Drugs.com Partnership carrying on business as CanadaDrugs.com, is a Canadian pharmacy of choice for purchasing discount prescription drugs and medication.  Complainant has offered its pharmacy services over the Internet since April 2001.  Complainant’s business name was registered with the Manitoba Companies office on February 27, 2003.

Complainant applied for trademark registration of the marks on March 23, 2001.  Complainant’s trademark registrations were granted by the Canada Registrar of Trade-marks for CANADADRUGS.COM (Reg. No. TMA581,899, issued May 20, 2003) and CANADA DRUGS (Reg. No. TMA581,915, issued May 20, 2003).

Complainant owns registrations for the <canadadrugs.com> domain name, where consumers can access Complainant’s services online.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 30, 2003 and is using the domain name to direct users to pharmacy and related service provider websites.

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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 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 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to the CANADADRUGS.COM and CANADA DRUGS marks as evidenced by its registration with the Canada Registrar of Trade-Marks and by continuous use of its marks in commerce for three years.  See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

Furthermore, Complainant applied for its trademark registrations prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.  Therefore, Complainant’s rights in the marks relate back to the application date, predating Respondent’s registration of the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name.  See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s rights in the FDNY mark relate back to the date that its successful trademark registration was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application for registration).

The domain name registered by Respondent, <wwwcanadadrugs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANADA DRUGS and CANADADRUGS.COM marks because the only difference is the mere addition of “www” to the domain name.  The “www” prefix does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.  See Elder Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Recker, FA 98414 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 10, 2001) (“In the matter at bar it is beyond refute that Respondent’s domain names are virtually identical, and thus confusingly similar to Elder’s trademarks. Any superficial differences between the domain names and the Elder trademarks are de minimis and of no legal consequence”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name that contains in its entirety Complainant’s mark.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (stating that “[p]roving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for [R]espondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).

Respondent is using the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a site that hosts a search engine to link viewers to a variety of websites, including sites that offer the same type of goods and services that Complainant offers online.  Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANADA DRUGS and CANADADRUGS.COM marks to redirect users interested in Complainant’s products to a commercial website that offers identical pharmacy options and related services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See eBay Inc. v. Sunho Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the "use of complainant’s entire mark in infringing domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use"); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).

Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name.  Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“Considering the nonsensical nature of the [<wwwmedline.com>] domain name and its similarity to Complainant’s registered and distinctive [MEDLINE] mark, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent”); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to advertise pharmacy products and related services.  Complainant’s business is an online Canadian pharmacy.  The Panel finds that, by creating confusion around Complainant’s mark, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor.  Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to sell goods similar to Complainant’s goods and services is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion).

Respondent registered the domain name for commercial gain.  Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users wishing to search under Complainant’s well-known mark to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto.,  FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.  

DECISION

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

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwcanadadrugs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated: June 14, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/756.html