Westmore · UDRP DecisionBuy-valium-online.net + 3 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all four disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous VALIUM mark because each incorporated the mark with the descriptive terms “buy” and “online.” The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad-faith registration and use were found based on the Respondent’s evident awareness of the famous, non-generic mark and the direction of one disputed domain name to an online pharmacy selling Valium, together with the common registrant and commercial nature of the domain names.
The timeline behind buy-valium-online.net
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 buy-valium-online.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates how domain names pairing a famous pharmaceutical mark with direct purchasing terms can support all three UDRP elements, particularly where one name is used for an online pharmacy and the respondent defaults. It is also notable that the Panel assessed four similarly constructed names together, extending its bad-faith-use conclusion across the set based on common registration and commercial character.
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 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Fred Baker, Private Person Case No. D2015-0566 1. The Parties The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland, internally represented. The Respondent is Fred Baker, Private Person, Mahe, Seychelles. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <buy-valium-online.net>, <online-valium-buy.com>, <online-valium-buy.net> and <online-valium-buy.org> are registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 1, 2015, 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 April 2, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 22, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2015. The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2015. 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 one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics. The Complainant’s mark VALIUM is protected as a registered trademark in several countries with trademark protection in Switzerland since 1961 (Annex 3 to the Complaint), and it is widely known throughout the world. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on December 22, 2014 (Annex 1 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the famous and well known mark VALIUM over which the Complainant has had rights since 1961. To add the prefixes and suffixes “buy” and “online” to the mark VALIUM does not make the disputed domain names distinctive form the mark VALIUM. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith by addressing or redirecting/forwarding to a website where Internet users are allowed to purchase pharmaceuticals online. For these reasons the Complainant requests the disputed domain names to be transferred. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s famous mark VALIUM. Even though the disputed domain names include other words, it is the Panel’s view that adding descriptive or non-distinctive signs ( e.g. “online” and “buy”) does not avoid the likelihood of confusion. The fame and notoriety of the mark VALIUM moreover increase the likelihood of confusion. In fact it is the Panel’s conviction that using the words “buy” and “online” together with the mark VALIUM rather strengthens the impression that the disputed domain names are in some way connected to the Complainant or at least “free ride” on the fame/publicity of the Complainant’s trademark VALIUM (see e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Peter Lombardo, Marino Sussich and Ray Landers , WIPO Case No. D2000-1511 , <telstra-free-online.com> et al; Dixons Group Plc v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah , WIPO Case No. D2000-1406 , <dixons-online.com>; Ryder Cup Europe LLP v. Rydercuponline.com / Andrew Seaforth , WIPO Case No. D2010-0688 , <rydercuponline.com>; Sanofi-aventis, AVENTISUB II Inc. v. MuruganNadar / Rajesh Singh , WIPO Case No. D2010-1959 , <buygenericallegra.com>; Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. MrToys.com LLC , WIPO Case No. D2012-1356 <bacichocolate.com> et al; Allianz SE v. Roy Lee / Traffic-Domain.com, WIPO Case No. D2012-1459 <allianztraveinsurance.com> et al, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong, WIPO Case No. D2013-0150 <swarovski-onlinesale.com> or Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ‘www.swarovski-outlet.org’ , WIPO Case No. D2013-0335 <swarovski-outlet.org>). It has also long been held that suffixes such as a country code or generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) cannot typically negate confusing similarity where it otherwise exists, as it does in the present case. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. However, by virtue of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, it is open to a respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” If the Respondent proves any of these elements or anything else that shows it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, the Complainant will have failed to discharge its onus and the Complaint will fail with respect to the disputed domain names. However, in the present case the Respondent failed to submit a Response. It is well established that, as it is put in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1 , “complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegation or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”. Considering all of the evidence in the Complaint (especially with regard to the Annexes presented by the Complainant) and the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and the Respondent has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademark VALIUM in a domain name or in any other manner lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Complainant has made out an undisputed prima facie case so that the conditions set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, if the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, are found by the Panel to be present, it shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has 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 the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from using the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy ( Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson , WIPO Case No. D2000-0001 , <musicweb.com>) both conditions, registered and used in bad faith, are cumulative, consequently, the Complainant must show that: - the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent in bad faith. Registered in bad faith To this Panel it is incontestable that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith because solely the fact of adding the words “buy” and “online” shows that the Respondent must have been aware of the fame and distinctiveness of the trademark VALIUM. When registering the disputed domain names, it is unlikely that the Respondent would have chosen these names unless seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant’s fame and reputation – the sign VALIUM is not a descriptive or generic term. The act of adding words like “buy” and “online” to domain names which incorporate a famous mark like in the present case is evidence of bad faith registration per se (see AT&T Corp. v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-1088 , <mobileatt.com>; Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. MrToys.com LLC , WIPO Case No. D2012-1356 <bacichocolate.com> et al ). Used in bad faith In order to meet paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy the Complainant must also prove that the disputed domains name are being used in bad faith. In the present case the Respondent has already directed one of the disputed domain names to an online pharmacy selling Valium. Given that the same Respondent is the registrant of all the disputed domain names, and the commercial nature of all the disputed domain names, the panel finds that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likehood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website (Annex 6 to the Complaint). . It is therefore the Panel’s conviction that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent and the conditions set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant. 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 names <buy-valium-online.net>, <online-valium-buy.com>, <online-valium-buy.net> and <online-valium-buy.org> be transferred to the Complainant. Peter Burgstaller Sole Panelist Date: May 22, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around buy-valium-online.net
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.