Westmore · UDRP DecisionMerckvacccines.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <merckvacccines.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MERCK mark because it combined the mark with a misspelling of the descriptive term “vaccines.” The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was found from the incorporation of the well-known pharmaceutical mark, the domain’s use for pay-per-click advertising links and likely commercial gain, and, as further evidence in the circumstances, the Respondent’s default and failure to provide accurate registrar contact details.
The timeline behind merckvacccines.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward trademark-plus-descriptive-term case in which a typo within the added term did not diminish confusing similarity. The connection between “vaccines” and the Complainant’s pharmaceutical business, together with pay-per-click use, supported both targeting and commercial-diversion findings.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Consumer Care, Inc., and their affiliates and subsidiaries v. PrivacyProtect.org / ICS Inc. Case No. D2013-2010 1. The Parties The Complainant is Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Consumer Care, Inc., and their affiliates and subsidiaries of New Jersey, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Lowenstein Sandler LLP, USA. The Respondent is PrivacyProtect.org of Queensland, Australia / ICS Inc. of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2013. On November 25, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 2013, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 29, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and invited the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 4, 2013. The Center verified that 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2013. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 26, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2013. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on January 9, 2014. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. The language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the owner of the trademark MERCK used since 1887 in the pharmaceutical field. Currently, the Complainant holds a large family of trademarks for or containing the word “merck”, namely 15 USA federal trademark registrations, 400 international trademark registrations and 1,065 top-level domain names. The disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com> was registered on November 14, 2012, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used in relation to a pay-per-click webpage redirecting Internet users to third-party websites. The corresponding webpage also displayed an announcement stating that the disputed domain name was for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark MERCK, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion And Findings In view of the default and the absence of any reply to the Complaint by the Respondent, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed 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 the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant holds numerous worldwide trademark registrations for the MERCK mark in the pharmaceutical field. The disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com> includes the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and the descriptive term “vaccines” misspelled, with an additional “c”. This Panel agrees with the majority view of UDRP panels 1 , that the addition of merely generic, descriptive terms to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MERCK. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has given no license or other right to use its trademarks, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that it has not conducted legitimate business under the name “merckvacccines”. In line with the previous UDRP decisions, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has provided a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent chose not to challenge the Complainant’s allegations. There is no evidence before the Panel to support the contrary, and therefore the Panel accepts these arguments as facts. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com>. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered in 2012 and incorporates the Complainant’s well-known mark used since 1887 in the pharmaceutical industry together with the word “vaccines” (misspelled), a term which is generic for the Complainant’s business. Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage containing advertising links, from which the Respondent likely benefits through the Registrar’s “Cash Parking” monetization program, and this fact supports the inference that the purpose of the Respondent’s diversion of traffic from the Complainant to itself is for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. Such facts constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, nor provide accurate contact details to the Registrar. Given the other circumstances of the case, such behavior may be considered as further evidence of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name. For the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <merckvacccines.com> in bad faith. 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 <merckvacccines.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: January 20, 2014 1 See paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around merckvacccines.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore 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.