This allegation is supported by email correspondence received by the Forum on May 15, 2015, May 19, 2015, May 20, 2015, May 22, 2015, May 26, 2015, May 29, 2015, June 2, 2015, June 3, 2015, and June 5, 2015, from various named registrants of the disputed domain names who denied having registered the domain names. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same holder using multiple aliases. Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding be in English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a).
Who we share your data with
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat.
Program Director: Dr. Robert Dean
Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Complainant alleges that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Complainant makes this request in light of the Chinese language Registration Agreement which may be present through registrar Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co.
- Legal regulations about purchasing Cialis online vary by country.
- Always verify that the source complies with local laws.
- Be cautious of illegal online sales which may deliver counterfeit drugs.
- Always request a prescription to ensure safe treatment.
- A healthcare professional can help find the best cost-effective options.
Ltd. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which the Panel has considered include: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would evince a familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which evinces an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) evincing Respondent’s understanding of the English language included in the Registration Agreement. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v.
| Product | Dosage | Quantity + Bonus | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cialis Soft Tabs | 20mg | 60 + 4 Pills | 159.37€ 151.78€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 2.5mg | 120 + 6 Pills | 128.93€ 122.79€ | |
| Cialis Soft Tabs | 20mg | 180 + 8 Pills | 353.17€ 336.35€ | |
| Cialis Black | 80mg | 60 + 4 Pills | 150.98€ 143.79€ | |
| Cialis Super Active | 20mg | 180 + 20 Pills | 521.59€ 496.75€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 40mg | 120 + 8 Pills | 206.98€ 197.12€ | |
| Cialis Black | 80mg | 10 Pills | 43.27€ 41.21€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 40mg | 180 + 10 Pills | 277.29€ 264.09€ | |
| Cialis Soft Tabs | 20mg | 270 + 10 Pills | 471.40€ 448.95€ | |
| Cialis Professional | 20mg | 270 + 6 Pills | 623.07€ 593.40€ |
Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). The Panel has also considered the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which may result in prejudice toward Complainant. See Finter Bank Zurich v.
| Country | Approval Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| USA | Approved by FDA | Prescription required |
| UK | Approved by MHRA | Prescription needed |
| India | Approved, generic widely available | OTC or prescription possible |
| Australia | Approved by TGA | Prescription required |
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.”).
- The price of Cialis varies greatly between pharmacies; compare prices.
- Using a prescription discount card can significantly reduce out-of-pocket cost.
- The medication has been studied extensively in clinical trials for safety.
- Tadalafil is also the active ingredient in the branded product Adcirca for PAH.
- Adcirca is a different strength and is not interchangeable with Cialis for ED.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive uncontested evidence has been adduced by Complainant to establish that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
What rights you have over your data
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has it gained any permission from Complainant to use the CIALIS mark in any way. Additionally, 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. Instead, all pages resolve to the
Looking for more in-depth reviews of these companies?
As the CIALIS mark has garnered worldwide recognition in its brand and is a distinctive mark, Respondent is presumably attempting to profit from Internet confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation between Complainant and Respondent, demonstrating Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith. It is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual or at least constructive knowledge of the CIALIS mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark, showing Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this 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 60 mg generic cialis it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has cialis tadalafil 20mg no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The CIALIS mark is used by Complainant and registered with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), panels have agreed in determining a complainant’s rights that a USPTO registration is sufficient. Forum Feb.
Key takeaways
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” In support of its argument, Complainant contends that all of the disputed domain names use the same online pharmacy template, and the Canadianpharmac24h.com logo on all of the sites hosted on the Domain Names resolves to the same URL
Paying with insurance
On July 17, 2014, domains were registered at both Nanjing and Vautron. On August 8, 2014, domains were registered at both Todaynic and Nanjing. From May 2014 until mid-October 2014, when the Respondent started to use Nanjing and Vautron registrars more frequently, the majority of the Domain Names were registered with Todaynic.com. In arguing for consolidation of Respondents, Complainant relies on Jonathan Matkowsky’s signed affidavit, provided in Complainant’s exhibits. Pursuant to Matkowsky’s Affidavit, Matkowsky is CEO of Maccabim.com Ltd, a corporation which provides cybercrime solutions to protect brand and intellectual property assets, and the disputed domain names are under the control of a criminal network under common control of a rogue online pharmacy network that uses false contact information to register domains, including compromised identities of innocent third persons. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Heart Attack
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 4, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Finding generic tadalafil
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. The CIALIS mark is used by Complainant and registered with the United States Patent and 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. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark as they each incorporate the mark fully and merely incorporate generic or descriptive terms such as: “discount”, “prices”, “online”, “generic”, “buy”, “cheap”, “pills”, and “order”, among others. The domains also incorporate generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) suffixes such as “.com”, “.net”, or “.org.” Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS mark as they each incorporate the mark fully and merely add generic or descriptive terms such as: “discount”, “prices”, “online”, “generic”, “buy”, “cheap”, “pills”, and “order”, among others.