Online Pharmacies and Cialis Purchases

In this case, a number of the commonly controlled domain names� websites are in the English language. The Panel shall also weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Russian language agreements, which would result in prejudice toward either party.

See Finter Bank Zurich v.

Start your online consultation

Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, �It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.�). Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been shown by the Complainant that Respondent is sufficiently conversant in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides the Proceeding should be in English. There is nothing to be gained by either translating the documents into Russian or by having a parallel set of proceedings.

The CIALIS mark is used by Complainant and was registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (�USPTO�) (e.g., Reg. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003) to identify its rights in a pharmaceutical product intended for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and benign prostatic hyperplasia. A complainant may prove its rights under Policy �4(a)(i) by proving a trademark registration with a governmental authority, such as the USPTO.� See Metro. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant�s rights in a mark under Policy �4(a)(i)).� Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the CIALIS mark under Policy �4(a)(i). Respondent�s disputed domain names each incorporate the CIALIS mark fully and merely add generic/descriptive/geographic terms, as well as the generic top-level domains (�gTLDs�) �.com,� or �.net.�� Adding generic/descriptive/geographic terms do not adequately differentiate a domain name from a mark under Policy �4(a)(i).� See, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (�CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights.� The addition of the generic term, �perfumes� is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant�s business.�); see also Trip Network Inc. v.

Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as �cancun� to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the , , , and domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy �4(a)(i)).� Furthermore, every domain name requires a TLD, whether it is a gTLD or a ccTLD.� Such TLDs must be disregarded when doing a Policy �4(a)(i) analysis.� Respondent�s disputed domains are confusing similar to the CIALIS mark pursuant to Policy �4(a)(i).

How it works

22, 2001) (�CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights.� The addition of the generic term, �perfumes� is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant�s business.�); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as �cancun� to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the , , , and domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy �4(a)(i)).� Furthermore, every domain name requires a TLD, whether it is a gTLD or a ccTLD.� Such TLDs must be disregarded when doing a Policy �4(a)(i) analysis.� Respondent�s disputed domains are confusing similar to the CIALIS mark pursuant to Policy �4(a)(i). The Panel finds Policy �4(a)(i) satisfied.

Pricing Information

Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy �4(a)(ii).� Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests.� See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm�t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP �4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v.

Doctor Preferences

Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (�Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.� If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.�). Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.� Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to register the CIALIS mark in any way.� Because Respondent has submitted no additional evidence for the Panel�s consideration, the Panel finds there is no basis for finding Respondent is �commonly known by� the domain names under Policy �4(c)(ii) in light of the available WHOIS information.� See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. Forum Dec. The Panel finds Policy �4(a)(i) satisfied. Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy �4(a)(ii).� Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests.� See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc.

• Cialis is a popular choice for erectile dysfunction treatment.
• It increases blood flow by relaxing penile muscles.
• Pharmacists can advise on proper dose and timing.
• Cialis is available with a doctor's prescription only.
• Side effects may include nasal congestion.
• Never share your medication with others.
• Check for drug interactions with your other medicines.
• Cialis may cause vision changes in some cases.
• It is important to disclose your health conditions.
• Avoid taking Cialis if you have low blood pressure.
• Some pharmacies offer discreet packaging.
• Health insurance may cover some Cialis costs.

v. Entm�t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP �4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (�Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.� If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.�). Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.� Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to register the CIALIS mark in any way.� Because Respondent has submitted no additional evidence for the Panel�s consideration, the Panel finds there is no basis for finding Respondent is �commonly known by� the domain names under Policy �4(c)(ii) in light of the available WHOIS information.� See IndyMac Bank F.S.B.

⚖️ Alternatives & Comparison

Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant�s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name).

⚠️ Safety & Warnings

7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant�s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name). Complainant claims Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.� All pages resolve to the same networks which promote and sell �Generic� CIALIS brand products.� This is an unlawful sale of a counterfeit pharmaceutical product which has not been approved by the FDA.� Marketing of illegal products does not create any rights or legitimate interests.� As in Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006), the panel concluded that �the respondent�s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy �4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy �4(c)(iii).�� Such products also compete with Complainant even if they weren�t illegal, so Respondent has not demonstrated any Policy �4(c)(i) and (iii) rights.� See eLuxury.com Inc. v.

Market Demand Trends

WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Nat. Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name); see also Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain names to redirect to websites advertising and promoting competing products is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy �4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy �4(c)(iii)).� Respondent�s resolving sites do not constitute a bona fide offering of a good or service per Policy �4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy �4(c)(iii). Further, Respondent has not accurately registered the disputed domain names under Respondent�s true name.� This means the domain name registration in the commercial context does not give Respondent any rights because the Respondent has not publicity associated itself with the disputed domain names.� The Panel finds Policy �4(a)(ii) satisfied.

Feedback from Forums

Respondent has registered a record breaking 71 domain names which incorporate Complainant�s mark.� Respondent clearly knew about 20mg cialis pill Complainant�s mark and how Complainant was using it (especially since Respondent was marketing counterfeit products).� This registration of 71 domain names clearly has not prevented Complainant from registering its mark in a domain name because Complainant owns .� This means Respondent has canadian pharmacy cialis 40mg not demonstrated bad faith under Policy �4(b)(ii).� However, the list of examples under Policy �4(b) is not exhaustive.� This Panel believes Respondent�s actions have been so egregious they constitute bad faith registration and use of the domain names. See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy �4(a)(iii)."). Complainant claims Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.� All pages resolve to the same networks which promote and sell �Generic� CIALIS brand products.� This is an unlawful sale of a counterfeit pharmaceutical product which has not been approved by the FDA.� Marketing of illegal products does not create any rights or legitimate interests.� As in Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006), the panel concluded that �the respondent�s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy �4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy �4(c)(iii).�� Such products also compete with Complainant even if they weren�t illegal, so Respondent has not demonstrated any Policy �4(c)(i) and (iii) rights.� See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Nat.

• Cialis is a medication used to treat erectile dysfunction.
• Cialis contains the active ingredient tadalafil.
• It is available by prescription at pharmacies.
• Cialis helps improve blood flow to the penis.
• The usual dose is 10mg or 20mg before activity.
• Cialis can be taken with or without food.
• The effects of Cialis last up to 36 hours.
• Common side effects include headache and flushing.
• Cialis is not suitable for everyone; consult a doctor first.
• It may interact with nitrates and other medications.
• Cialis can be purchased online with a valid prescription.
• Always follow the dosage instructions given by your pharmacist.

Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name); see also Eli Lilly and Company v. Igor Palchikov, FA 1105001388612 (NAF, June 15, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain names to redirect to websites advertising and promoting competing products is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy �4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy �4(c)(iii)).� Respondent�s resolving sites do not constitute a bona fide offering of a good or service per Policy �4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy �4(c)(iii). Further, Respondent has not accurately registered the disputed domain names under Respondent�s true name.� This means the domain name registration in the commercial context does not give Respondent any rights because the Respondent has not publicity associated itself with the disputed domain names.� The Panel finds Policy �4(a)(ii) satisfied.

What is Cialis used for?

In this case, a number of the commonly controlled domain names� websites are in the English language. The Panel shall also weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Russian language agreements, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, �It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.�). Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been shown by the Complainant that Respondent is sufficiently conversant in the English language.

Black Box Warnings

After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides the Proceeding should be in English. There is nothing to be gained by either translating the documents into Russian or by having a parallel set of proceedings. The CIALIS mark is used by Complainant and was registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (�USPTO�) (e.g., Reg. 2,724,589, registered June 10, 2003) to identify its rights in a pharmaceutical product intended for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and benign prostatic hyperplasia. A complainant may prove its rights under Policy �4(a)(i) by proving a trademark registration with a governmental authority, such as the USPTO.� See Metro.

Pharmacy Availability

Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant�s rights in a mark under Policy �4(a)(i)).� Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the CIALIS mark under Policy �4(a)(i). Respondent�s disputed domain names each incorporate the CIALIS mark fully and merely add generic/descriptive/geographic terms, as well as the generic top-level domains (�gTLDs�) �.com,� or �.net.�� Adding generic/descriptive/geographic terms do not adequately differentiate a domain name from a mark under Policy �4(a)(i).� See, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. Respondent has registered a record breaking 71 domain names which incorporate Complainant�s mark.� Respondent clearly knew about 20mg cialis pill Complainant�s mark and how Complainant was using it (especially since Respondent was marketing counterfeit products).� This registration of 71 domain names clearly has not prevented Complainant from registering its mark in a domain name because Complainant owns .� This means Respondent has canadian pharmacy cialis 40mg not demonstrated bad faith under Policy �4(b)(ii).� However, the list of examples under Policy �4(b) is not exhaustive.� This Panel believes Respondent�s actions have been so egregious they constitute bad faith registration and use of the domain names.

Patent Status & Generics of Cialis

Nearly all the disputed domain names purport to sell counterfeit/competing products of Complainant (a number of domain names are inactive), which constitutes bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iii).� See Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. 5, 2008) (concluding that the complainant�s business is disrupted by the respondent�s registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling counterfeit products); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Forum Dec.

Special Precautions

28, 2005) (�Respondent is appropriating Complainant�s mark to divert Complainant�s customers to Respondent�s competing business.� The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy �4(b)(iii).�).� Respondent has attempted to disrupt Complainant�s legitimate business in bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iii). Respondent is presumably attempting to profit from Internet confusion about the CIALIS mark because it is recognized worldwide as Complainant�s product.� Respondent is trying to create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation between Complainant and Respondent�s domain names, demonstrating Policy �4(b)(iv) bad faith.� The panel in H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. 23, 2009) found the respondent�s selling of counterfeit products created the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant�s affiliation with the disputed domain name, allowing the respondent to profit from that confusion.� This constitutes bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iv).� Similarly, this Respondent offered counterfeit products for sale to the general public.� Such actions constitute bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy �4(b)(iv).� See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug.

User Reviews

17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant�s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Forum Jan.

11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy �4(a)(iii)."). Nearly all the disputed domain names purport to sell counterfeit/competing products of Complainant (a number of domain names are inactive), which constitutes bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iii).� See Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., L.L.C. 5, 2008) (concluding that the complainant�s business is disrupted by the respondent�s registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling counterfeit products); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (�Respondent is appropriating Complainant�s mark to divert Complainant�s customers to Respondent�s competing business.� The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy �4(b)(iii).�).� Respondent has attempted to disrupt Complainant�s legitimate business in bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iii). Respondent is presumably attempting to profit from Internet confusion about the CIALIS mark because it is recognized worldwide as Complainant�s product.� Respondent is trying to create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation between Complainant and Respondent�s domain names, demonstrating Policy �4(b)(iv) bad faith.� The panel in H-D Michigan, LLC v.

• Adherence to the prescribed regimen is critical for achieving the best results with treatment.
• For daily dosing, taking the pill at the same time each day helps maintain steady drug levels.
• Setting a daily reminder or using a pill organizer can help prevent missed doses.
• Do not increase your dose without talking to your doctor, even if you feel the medication isn't working.
• It may take a few attempts or dosage adjustments to find what works best for you.
• Keeping a log of your responses can help your doctor fine-tune your treatment plan.
• Note the timing of the dose, presence of sexual stimulation, and the quality of the erection.
• Also record any side effects you experience and their severity.
• This data provides valuable objective information for your healthcare provider.
• Be patient; finding the right treatment approach is often a process of adjustment.

Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat. 23, 2009) found the respondent�s selling of counterfeit products created the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant�s affiliation with the disputed domain name, allowing the respondent to profit from that confusion.� This constitutes bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iv).� Similarly, this Respondent offered counterfeit products for sale to the general public.� Such actions constitute bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy �4(b)(iv).� See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy �4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant�s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).