Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2013-0263

Valiumbuyhere.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <valiumbuyhere.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered VALIUM trademark because it incorporated the mark in full and the words “buy” and “here” did not distinguish it. The Respondent failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case regarding rights or legitimate interests. On bad faith, the Panel found that the website displayed information about Valium and implied that the product could be purchased there without appropriately disclosing the website’s relationship with the Complainant, even though the site had no actual payment mechanism or link to an online pharmacy or store.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2013-03-26
Panelist(s)
Li, Chiang Ling
Complainant
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Respondent
Ivan Shashkov
Disputed domain(s)
valiumbuyhere.com
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind valiumbuyhere.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind valiumbuyhere.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of valiumbuyhere.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The case illustrates that a domain combining a pharmaceutical mark with purchase-oriented wording may support confusing similarity and bad faith even where the associated website cannot actually process a purchase. The Panel focused on the domain’s implication, the product-specific website content, the absence of relationship disclosure, and the Respondent’s failure to establish any legitimate basis for the registration.

The three-part test
Identical or Confusingly SimilarMet
Rights or Legitimate InterestsMet
Registered and Used in Bad FaithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2013-03-26
Panel
Li, Chiang Ling
Full decision
5 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Ivan Shashkov Case No. D2013-0263 1. The Parties The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally. The Respondent is Ivan Shashkov of Ivanovo, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <valiumbuyhere.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2013. On February 7, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 10, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 5, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2013. The Center appointed Chiang Ling Li as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2013. 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’s mark VALIUM (the “Trademark”) has been registered as a trademark, including with the Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property), for pharmaceutical products. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <valiumbuyhere.com> (the “Domain Name”) on January 25, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark The Complainant submits that the Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety, and that the additional generic terms “buy” and “here” do not sufficiently distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark. It adds that the Complainant’s use and registration of the Trademark predates the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. Respondent’s lack of right or interest in the Domain Name The Complainant submits that it has the exclusive rights to the Trademark and that it has not authorised the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name. It submits that the Domain Name clearly alludes to the Complainant, and that there is no reason for the Respondent to have any interest in the Domain Name. Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Respondent undoubtedly had knowledge of the Trademark, which is well-known. It further stated that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith because the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s products or services on its website, for a commercial purpose. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent may generate unjustified revenues, and as such, is illegally capitalizing on the Trademark. Requested remedy The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark, due to the incorporation of the entirety of the Trademark in the Domain Name. The words “buy” and “here” do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In this case, the Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Having examined the website of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that there is no link to an online pharmacy or store, and that despite the images of credit cards at the bottom of the webpage (which denotes that payment is accepted for the products), there is in fact no payment mechanism on the website, either through the website or through a third party payment vendor. As the Respondent used the Domain Name to set up the website which displays information on the Valium product, the Respondent must be aware of the Valium product and mark. The Domain Name implies that the Complainant’s products can be bought on the website (even if they cannot be) without appropriately disclosing its relationship with the Complaint. The Panel thus finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <valiumbuyhere.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Chiang Ling Li Sole Panelist Date: March 26, 2013

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around valiumbuyhere.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,934 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions.

LinkedIn
Insights
Briefs
Who Owns
Westmore
Research
Services
UDRP
Support
Buyer-side only· Escrow-protected· NDA on request

© 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

A note on privacy

Westmore uses a few essential cookies to keep this site secure and running smoothly. Nothing about your identity or interest is ever sold or shared.