Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

 

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi-Aventis v. Abadaba S.A.

Case No. D2006-1611

 

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sanofi-Aventis, Gentilly Cedex, France, represented by Bird & Bird, Solicitors, Paris, France.

The Respondent is Abadaba S.A., of Panama.

 

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name <i-ambien.com> the (“Ambien Domain”) is registered with Fabulous.com.

The disputed domain name <online-buy-plavix.com> (the “Plavix Domain”) is registered with Web.com, Inc.

 

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2006. On December 22, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Fabulous.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the Ambien Domain. On December 28, 2006, Fabulous.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact for the Ambien Domain. On December 22, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Web Internet LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Plavix Domain. On March 2, 2007, Web.com, Inc. (successor to Web Internet LLC) transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant of the Plavix Domain, and providing the registrant’s contact details.

In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 5, 2007. 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”), 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 proceeding commenced on April 12, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 2, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2007.

The Center appointed Warwick Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on May 14, 2007. 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.

In the absence of a Response to the Complaint, the Panel has checked that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules to notify the Amended Complaint to the Respondent. The Panel is satisfied that the Center has done so, and that the Respondent has had actual notice of the Amended Complaint.

The expiration dates of the Plavix Domain and the Ambien Domain fell respectively on March 14, 2007, and May 20, 2007. By email dated April 24, 2007, the Center drew the parties’ attention to those expiration dates, and passed on advice received from the Registrar of the Plavix Domain that that particular registration had already expired. However the Center noted its understanding that the Plavix Domain, although past its expiration date, nevertheless remained under registrar lock. The Center drew to the parties’ attention the provisions of paragraph 3.7.5.7 of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), under which either party is entitled to take the necessary steps to renew a domain name registration which expires during the course of a proceeding under the Policy.

In its email to the parties dated April 24, 2007, the Center advised the parties to contact the Registrar of the Plavix Domain, in order to guarantee that the registration was maintained for the duration of this proceeding. The Center sent a further e-mail to the Complainant on June 4, 2007 requesting advice as to whether appropriate action had been taken regarding the expiration of the domain name. An inconclusive reply was received on June 7, 2007.

While the Ambien Domain appears to have been renewed, it seems that the Plavix Domain was not renewed. The Registrar of the Plavix Domain advised the Center on June 14, 2007:

“The domain name appears to have been deleted by our automated deletion process. The administrative hold which was on the domain name does not prevent the domain from being deleted.”

In response to a follow-up enquiry from the Center on June 15, 2007, the Registrar of the Plavix Domain advised (on June 16, 2007) that no attempt had been made by either party to renew the Plavix Domain prior to its expiration.

 

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the largest pharmaceutical group in Europe, and the third largest in the world. In 2005, it boasted worldwide sales of approximately €27.3 billion. It is a multinational company, represented in more than 100 countries across five continents. Worldwide, it employs approximately 97,000 people.

Among the Complainant’s products are the drugs Plavix and Ambien. According to the Complaint, Plavix is one of the world’s ten leading medicines. It is used in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Plavix is available in more than 80 countries, including Panama where the Respondent is located.

The Complainant also markets the product Ambien, which is a drug used in the treatment of insomnia. Worldwide, Ambien is one of the leading prescription drugs used in the treatment of insomnia (from which, according to the Complaint, some 20-30% of the population suffer).

The Complainant’s Trade marks

The Complainant has established that it is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations around the world for the marks PLAVIX and AMBIEN. It is not necessary to refer to all of these trade mark registrations, but the Panel notes by way of example that the Complainant has been registered as proprietor of the mark PLAVIX in Australia in International Class 5 for “pharmaceutical products”, with effect from July 1993. The Complainant also holds a Canadian registration for PLAVIX dating from 1993, and a Singapore registration in International Class 5, also dating from 1993. Registrations in International Class 5 for PLAVIX in the United States of America and in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have been in effect from 1993 and 1996 respectively.

The Complainant has produced evidence of its proprietorship of the registered mark AMBIEN in the United States, with effect from 1993, and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with effect from May 1991. There is also an international registration for the mark AMBIEN under the Madrid Protocol, in International Class 5, having a priority date of February 19, 1993.

The Complainant’s Domain Names

The Complainant has websites specifically dedicated to the marketing of its products in individual countries. For example, its website at “www.sanofi-aventis.us” serves the United States market. It operates such a website for residents of Panama, at “www.sanofi-aventis.com.pa”

The Complainant has produced some pages from the websites which it operates at “www.sanofi-aventis.us” and “www.sanofi-aventis.com.pa”. Information relating to both drugs, Ambien and Plavix, are provided on the American website. On the Panama website, there is reference to “Plavix®”, but there does not appear to be any reference to the drug Ambien.

The Complainant operates websites at numerous other domain names, including <plavix.com>, <plavix.net>, <ambien.net> and <ambien.biz>.

The Respondent and the Domain Names

The Ambien Domain was registered on May 20, 2005. The Plavix Domain was registered on March 14, 2006.

The Complainant has produced some pages copied from the websites to which the Ambien Domain and the Plavix Domain resolve or resolved. Having regard to the procedural difficulties to be referred to later in this decision, it is not necessary for the Panel to refer to the pages from the website to which the Plavix Domain resolved.

The pages which the Complainant has produced from the website at the Ambien Domain, were printed on December 18, 2006. The slogan “What you need, when you need it” appears on these web pages, and they also feature a number of sponsored links to what appear to be medical or pharmaceutical-related sites. Under a heading “Main”, there are links to “Cheap Ambien”, and “Ambien”. Under the heading “Top Sites”, there are links to a number of online pharmacies. One such link is headed “Generic Ambien”.

The website at the Ambien Domain appears to focus primarily on pharmaceutical products, but it also provides a more general search engine service, with links to other websites listed by category (e.g. travel, finance, home, entertainment, lifestyle, car rental, casino, hotels, mortgage, etc). These groupings are listed under the category headings: “Top Categories”, “Popular Categories”, and “Favorite Categories”.

 

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends as follows:

1. The Ambien Domain and the Plavix Domain are (respectively) confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks AMBIEN and PLAVIX, for the following reasons:

1.1 The addition of generic words to the Complainant’s trademarks does not affect the overall impression of confusing similarity (citing, among other WIPO cases, Sanofi-Aventis v. Antoine Tardif / Cybernet Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2006-0879, where the at-issue domain name was <buy-ambien-drug-online.com>.) In the Antoine Tardif case, the Panel noted that the at-issue domain name included the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark together with three other generic words, none of which detracted from the overall impression given to the reader that the domain name was principally repeating the trademark and was intending to convey that fact to the reader. Sanofi-Aventis v Davie Kearney, WIPO Case No. D2006-0861, dealing with the domain name <ambien-i.com>, is to similar effect. In that case, the Panel referred to the letter “i” as “a common prefix and suffix in domain names”, and said that “when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s mark and adds a generic word, that is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy”.

1.2 Persons accessing the Plavix Domain and the Ambien Domain would be bound to think that they have a connection with the Complainant.

1.3 The suffix “.com” has no distinguishing capacity.

2. The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Plavix Domain or the Ambien Domain, for the following reasons:

2.1 The Complainant has prior rights in the trademarks AMBIEN and PLAVIX which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Plavix Domain and the Ambien Domain.

2.2 The Complainant’s AMBIEN and PLAVIX marks are well-known throughout the world.

2.3 The Plavix Domain and the Ambien Domain are used by the Respondent to promote medical websites and/or products manufactured by competitors of the Complainant through various links to online pharmacies to which the Plavix Domain and the Ambien Domain are linked.

2.4 The Respondent’s websites do nothing to disclaim any relationship with the Complainant as the owner of the AMBIEN and PLAVIX marks.

2.5 The Respondent’s activities are not protected by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, as the Respondent fails to meet the several minimum requirements for a reseller as specified by the Panel in OKI Data Americas, Inc v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. One of the requirements laid down in the OKI Data Americas, Inc case was: “The Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademark goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods.” A further requirement stipulated by the Panel in the OKI Data Americas, Inc case, was: “The site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site”. Having regard to those requirements, the Respondent has not been using the Plavix Domain or the Ambien Domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

2.6 The Respondent has not been granted any license or consent under which it might have been entitled to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s AMBIEN and PLAVIX marks.

2.7 The Respondent has registered the Ambien Domain and the Plavix Domain with the intention of diverting consumers, and with intent to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademarks in corresponding domain names.

2.8 Using domain names in order to divert consumers for commercial gain cannot be characterized as a fair use.

3. The Respondent has registered and is using the Ambien Domain and the Plavix Domain in bad faith, for the following reasons:

3.1 The Respondent has no prior right, and no authorization from the Complainant concerning the Ambien and Plavix trademarks.

3.2 The Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names which include famous trademarks, is indicative of bad faith registration and use.

3.3 The Respondent is aware that the Complainant’s Ambien product is the leading prescription sleep aid in the United States, and that the Complainant’s PLAVIX product is one of the world’s ten leading medicines.

3.4 The Respondent has been guilty of opportunistic cybersquatting.

3.5 The Respondent, knowing the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s AMBIEN and PLAVIX products, has registered the Ambien Domain and the Plavix Domain in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names. The Respondent has been seeking to disrupt the Complainant’s business.

3.6 The mere holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark belonging to a third party can, in itself, be considered as disrupting the business of the rightful owner.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

 

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Issues

(i) The Expiration of the Plavix Domain

The picture is confused, to say the least of it, but it appears from the advice received from the Registrar of the Plavix Domain that following the expiration date, the Plavix Domain was somehow deleted by the Registrar’s automated deletion process (notwithstanding that the Plavix Domain was said to have been placed on “administrative hold”).

The Complainant has been asked by the Center to confirm that it took appropriate steps to request the renewal of the Plavix Domain, but no such confirmation has been provided. In those circumstances, the Panel can only conclude that the position is as stated by the Registrar, namely that no renewal request was made and that the Plavix Domain registration has been deleted.

If that is the case, it seems to the Panel that it would be inappropriate in the present case to make any order relating to the Plavix Domain. The remedies available under paragraph 4(i) of the Policy are available only against the registrant, or holder, of a domain name. (The available remedies are cancellation of “your” domain name, or the transfer to the complainant of “your domain name registration”. “You” and “your” are defined in the Policy as referring to the holder of the domain name.) The Plavix Domain has been deleted by the Registrar, and neither of the parties has taken the necessary steps to revive the domain pursuant to the ICANN Expired Domain Deletion Policy (http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm).

So it appears that there is no “domain name registration” of the Plavix Domain still in existence, and therefore nothing capable of being cancelled or transferred. The appropriate order in those circumstances, is that the Complaint relating to the Plavix Domain should be dismissed, but without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to file any new complaint it may wish to file relating to the Plavix Domain in the event of the apparent deletion of the Plavix Domain being reversed by the Registrar, or the Plavix Domain being re-registered, whether by the present Respondent or by some other party.

(ii) Extension of time for Panel’s Decision

The Center has encountered extraordinary difficulties in this case, in obtaining clear advice from the parties and from the Registrar of the Plavix Domain, as to its registration status after March 14, 2007. Those difficulties have continued into June of 2007, and have delayed the issue of this decision. The circumstances can fairly be described as exceptional within the meaning of paragraphs 10(c) and 15(b) of the Rules, and it is appropriate that the time for the Panel’s decision be extended. The time for the Panel to render its decision is extended accordingly, until June 28, 2007.

B. General Principles under the Policy

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following:

(i) That the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii) That the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to:

“… decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

If a respondent does not submit a response, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules requires the Panel to “decide the dispute based on the complaint”. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from a respondent’s failure to comply with the Rules (by filing a response), as the Panel considers appropriate.

C. Identical or Confusingly Similar

As the complaint in respect of the Plavix Domain must be dismissed (for the reasons set out in Section 6A of this decision), the Panel will confine its consideration to the evidence relating to the Ambien Domain.

The Complainant has proved that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark AMBIEN in numerous jurisdictions. The issue is whether the Ambien Domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMBIEN mark.

The Panel is satisfied that it is. First, numerous WIPO panels have held that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy (see for example, Nokia Group v. Mr. Giannattasio Mario, WIPO Case No. D2002-0782, followed by the three member WIPO Panel in The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2005-1137). The following comment of the Panel in Sanofi-Aventis v. Davie Kearney, WIPO Case No. 2006-0861 is also on point: “When a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s mark and adds a generic word, that is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.” In this case, the Ambien Domain wholly incorporates the mark AMBIEN.

Secondly, the distinctive part of the Ambien Domain is the corresponding AMBIEN trademark owned by the Complainant.

The addition of the letter “i-” does nothing to mitigate the confusion likely to be caused by the inclusion of the Complainant’s mark in the Ambien Domain, especially as the letter “i” is frequently used as an abbreviation for the word “information”. Nor does the hyphen affect the meaning conveyed by the Ambien Domain.

Finally under this head, there is nothing to suggest that the expression “ambien” would have any meaning in the English language, except as a reference to the Complainant’s “Ambien” pharmaceutical product.

The Panel concludes, without difficulty, that the Ambien Domain is confusingly similar to the AMBIEN trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

D. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances which, without limitation, may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:

(i) Before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, use by [the respondent] 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) Where [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) Where [the respondent is] 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.

The wording of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy appears to envisage the respondent taking steps to demonstrate its right or interest, and it is generally accepted that, once a complainant has proved that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark and that it has not authorized the respondent to use the domain name, a finding of “no legitimate right or interest” should normally follow if the respondent does not advance any plausible “right or legitimate interest” case. (If the respondent does put forward such a case, the Panel decides the issue on the basis of all of the evidence, with the complainant carrying the ultimate burden of proof.)

That approach to the burden of proof under this paragraph of the Policy is consistent with the “Consensus View” of WIPO panels, described at paragraph 2.1 of the Center’s online document “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, as follows:

“A Complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”.

In this case, the Panel has found that the Ambien Domain is confusingly similar to the AMBIEN trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent has not been authorised to use the Complainant’s AMBIEN mark, whether by incorporating it in a domain name or otherwise.

In the absence of any Response, those findings are probably sufficient for the Panel to conclude that the Complainant has discharged its burden of proof under this part of the Policy, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Ambien Domain. However, there is compelling additional evidence that the Respondent could not have any such rights or legitimate interests.

In certain circumstances, a genuine reseller of someone else’s trademarked goods may be able to register a domain name which includes that trademark. Those circumstances are discussed in detail in the Oki Data Americas, Inc case (WIPO Case No. D2001-0903), where the Panel listed a number of minimum requirements for such a reseller to come within the “bona fide use” safe harbour of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. One of those minimum requirements, is that the Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise, the Respondent could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods).

In this case, the Respondent could not possibly contend that it is a bona fide reseller of the Complainant’s AMBIEN pharmaceutical products. The website at the Ambien Domain offers numerous goods and services of other suppliers, additional to the Complainant’s goods – the “Generic AMBIEN” link being an obvious example.

The Respondent is not using these websites to sell only the Complainant’s trademarked goods, and therefore its use of the Ambien Domain cannot be regarded as bona fide for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

More generally, it could never be a bona fide, legitimate, or fair use of a domain name which incorporates in full someone else’s trademark, to point that domain name to a website through which products of the trademark owner’s competitors are being sold (whether directly at that site or at other sites to which links are provided on the website). There have been numerous Panel decisions under the Policy to that effect. For present purposes, one example will suffice. In Shahnaz Husain v Saxena Dinesh O, WIPO Case No. D2006-1132, the Panel said:

“In addition, in line with consistent WIPO UDRP decisions, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to divert internet users to his website and redirect them to other websites, some of which offer for sale the Complainant’s direct competitors products, presumably receiving compensation for this misdirection, cannot be considered a bona fide use of a domain name as per paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy (See e.g. Lyonnaise de Banque v. Richard J, WIPO Case No. D2006-0142, and Motorola Inc v. Mr. Josip Broz, WIPO Case No. 2002-1063)” followed/applied by 3-member panel in Provident Financial plc and Provident Insurance plc v. Mode L, ; WIPO Case No. D2007-0149.

Having regard to that line of cases, neither paragraph 4(c)(i) nor paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy could provide the Respondent with any right or legitimate interest.

Finally, there is no suggestion that the Respondent is commonly known by the Ambien Domain. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy therefore could not apply.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Ambien Domain.

E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s AMBIEN product when it registered the Ambien Domain. On the evidence produced, the word “ambien” has no meaning except as a reference to the Complainant’s AMBIEN product, and the Complainant’s Ambien product is itself offered for sale on the website to which the Ambien Domain resolves. Anyone coming across the Ambien Domain would quite reasonably assume that it would resolve to a website owned or operated by the manufacturer of the Ambien product (or at least someone authorised by that manufacturer).

The link on that website to another site selling “generic AMBIEN” confirms that the Respondent was and is fully aware that “AMBIEN” is someone else’s trademark. The Respondent has used that trademark to attract visitors to a website where numerous other products are offered, including products of the Complainant’s competitors.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances include:

(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 on-line 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] website or location.

As the Panel put it in Sanofi-Aventis v. Antoine Tardif / Cybernet Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2006-0879:

“It would be difficult, therefore, to contemplate a more obvious case of disrupting a trademark owner’s business than to urge potential customers not to buy one of its specific products, but rather to buy alternative products from rival manufacturers for the treatment of the same condition and also to urge them to buy other products from rival manufacturers for the treatment of other conditions. That is clearly what the Respondent is doing and what the Panel finds that it intended to do.”

Those words are entirely apt to describe the Respondent’s registration and use of the Ambien Domain in the present case. However, in this case the Panel prefers to base its decision under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, rather than on the basis that the Respondent registered the Ambien Domain primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii)). In this case, it is not entirely clear to the Panel that the Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant (rather than a mere provider of Internet links to websites of others, including some who are competitors of the Complainant), and the Respondent’s primary purpose may simply have been to make money for itself (rather than disrupt the Complainant’s business).

No such issues arise under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Applying that paragraph of the Policy, it is clear that the Respondent registered (and has been using) the Ambien Domain with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website at the Ambien Domain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AMBIEN trademark (as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website at the Ambien Domain).

The Panel accordingly finds that the Ambien Domain was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

 

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Ambien Domain <i-ambien.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

For the reasons set out in paragraph 6A of this decision, the Complaint in respect of the Plavix Domain <online-buy-plavix.com> is dismissed, without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to file a new complaint in the event of the Plavix Domain being registered in the future (whether by the Respondent or by some other party).

---

Warwick Smith
Sole Panelist

Dated: June 28, 2007