Walgreen Co. v Dan Miller

WIPO Case No. D2022-2704

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Walgreen Co. v. Dan Miller

Case No. D2022-2704

1. The Parties

Complainant is Walgreen Co., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP

Group PLLC, United States.

Respondent is Dan Miller, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <walgreensrx.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Extend Names, LLC

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2022. On connection with the Domain Name. On August 2, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 4, 2022 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 9, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 11, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 31, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 2, 2022.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 2022.
The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant provides pharmacy and healthcare services, operating retail pharmacy chains in the United States, with approximately 9,000 retail stores across the United States, employing over 240,000 people, including over 85,000 healthcare service providers such as pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurse

practitioners and other health-related professionals.

Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks, in numerous jurisdictions in the word, including the

United States, for example:

- United States registered trademark number 1057249 for WALGREENS word mark, registered on
January 25, 1977;

- United States registered trademark number 2077524 for WALGREENS word mark, registered on
July 8, 1997;

- United States registered trademark number 2096551 for WALGREENS word mark, registered on
September 16, 1997;

- United States registered trademark number 2292545 for WALGREENS design and word mark,
registered on November 16, 1999;

- United States registered trademark number 2548077 for WALGREENS.COM design and word mark,
registered on March 12, 2002; and

- United States registered trademark number 3303249 for WALGREENS design and word mark,
registered on October 2, 2007.

Complainant also owns and operates the domain name <walgreens.com> as its primary website, having registered it in May 1995.

The Domain Name was registered on April 22, 2022, and previously dynamically redirected to various webpages including the webpage featuring Complainant’s Walgreens logo, offering Walgreens coupons and promo codes, and the webpage featuring third-party links that directed users to competitor pharmacy websites. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an inactive page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for WALGREENS and that bona fide and well-known Walgreens products and services.

Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name, which includes Complainant’s trademarks, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

page 3

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant

has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself
mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an

admission that the complainant’s claims are true.

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of its rights in the WALGREENS trademarks, as noted above. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that the WALGREENS trademarks are widely known and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products and services. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the WALGREENS trademarks.

With Complainant’s rights in the WALGREENS trademark established, the remaining question under the first
element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in
which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No.
D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WALGREENS trademarks. These trademarks, which are fanciful and inherently distinctive, are recognizable in the Domain Name. In particular, the Domain Name includes Complainant’s trademark WALGREENS in its entirety, followed by the letters “rx” which represents a known abbreviation in the industry for “medical prescription”. The addition of the letters “rx” after the WALGREENS trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the WALGREENS trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always

page 4

remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or
legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its WALGREENS trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the WALGREENS trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the WALGREENS trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence shows that the Domain Name previously redirected to various websites including the website featuring Complainant’s Walgreens logo, offering Walgreens coupons and promo codes, and the website featuring third party links that directed users to competing third party pharmaceutical websites, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875.

Further, the nature of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant (see WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does

not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under

paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain
Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such

conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”

page 5

The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s WALGREENS trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the WALGREENS trademarks when he registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v.

Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.

Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s WALGREENS trademark in its entirety suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WALGREENS trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The fact that the additional letters “rx” (which is an abbreviation known in the industry as “medical prescription”) in the Domain Name are directly associated with Complainant’s business activities in the field of medical prescription services reinforces the Panel’s finding of Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks. Moreover, the Domain Name is nearly identical to Complainant’s domain name <walgreens.com>. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name is in bad faith.

Moreover, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to confuse and mislead consumers looking for bona fide and well-known WALGREENS products and services of Complainant or authorized partners of Complainant. The use of the WALGREENS mark as the dominant part of the Domain Name is intended to

capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for Complainant’s products and services. Such
use and association of the Domain Name to previously divert users to various webpages including the
webpage featuring Complainant’s Walgreens logo, offering Walgreens coupons and promo codes, and the
webpage featuring third party links that directed users to competing third party pharmaceutical websites,
could result in causing confusion with Complainant’s business activities. It may confuse Internet users who
are looking for Complainant’s legitimate website and deceive Internet users into thinking that Respondent is
somehow connected to Complainant, which is not the case.

Moreover, the Panel also notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the WALGREENS trademarks, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and the implausibility of any good-faith use to which the Domain Name may be put.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and

Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

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 Domain Name <walgreensrx.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Kimberley Chen Nobles/
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: November 30, 2022