Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2023-3274

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2023-3274

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Israel, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Name Redacted[1].

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tevapharmcareer.org> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2023. On July 31, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 1, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 2, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

page 2

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the Respondent sent an email asking for the suspension of the proceedings to explore settlement options. The Complainant did not request to suspend the proceedings. On August 14, 2023, a third party contacted the Center by email regarding the claimed unauthorized use of its identity and contact details in relation to the disputed domain name. On August 29, 2023, the Center informed the parties that it will proceed to panel appointment.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 2023. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an internationally active and widely known pharmaceutical company, which was established in 1935.

The Complainant is the owner of the TEVA and TEVAPHARM trademarks, which are registered in many pharmaceutical and related goods and services (Annex 7 to the Complaint).
jurisdictions worldwide (Annex 8 to the Complaint). Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the

International Trademark No. 1319184, registered on June 15, 2016, for TEVA and the European Union

In addition, the Complainant owns and operates its official website at “

The Respondent is an individual, whose name is redacted since the Center has received an email from a third party (from an email address differing from the Registrar-disclosed Respondent’s email address) arguing that he has received the Center’s Written notice, that he did not purchase the disputed domain name and he has been victim of bank fraud and identity theft. A similar name to Complainant’s name was provided as the organization name for the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 22, 2023.

As evidenced by screenshots in the Complaint (Annex 15 to the Complaint), users visiting the disputed domain name were redirected to a website in English language that prominently used the Complainant’s TEVA trademark and also pictures copies from the Complainant’s website, without providing for a visible disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties. At that website, alleged career opportunities at the Complainant were offered to Internet users.

At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name does no longer resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center merely received three informal email communications in English language on August 3 and 16, 2023, stating that the sender is open for a settlement with the Complainant.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel might, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in the TEVA and TEVAPHARM trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the TEVA and TEVAPHARM marks is reproduced within the disputed domain
name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the
Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms, here “career”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the TEVA and TEVAPHARM marks for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

prima facie

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a case that the rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

On the contrary and bearing in mind that the Respondent tries to impersonate the Complainant by allegedly offering career opportunities at the Complainant, noting also the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel cannot exclude that the disputed domain name might have been used or will be used in connection

with possibly fraudulent or illegitimate activities by the Respondent.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation and passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its TEVA and that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name to target and mislead third parties. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website by misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated website is operated or at least authorized by the Complainant, apparently for fraudulent purposes.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., impersonation and passing off) constitutes bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

page 5

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <tevapharmcareer.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: September 19, 2023

identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated that

Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-
12785241 Attn. <Bradescourgente.net> / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.