Online Pharmacies and Cialis Purchases

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. 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.

What Dosages and Forms is Cialis available in?

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).

Manufacturers And Registration

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. 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.

Comparison Table

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.

Feedback from Forums

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. 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. 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.

• Cialis’s onset is typically within 30 minutes.
• The drug’s effects can last up to 36 hours.
• Do not take more than the prescribed dose.
• Missed doses should not be doubled.
• Consult your doctor if you miss a dose.
• Cialis is not an instant solution; arousal is needed.
• Overuse can increase side effect risk.
• Ensure your doctor is aware of all health conditions.
• Cialis is used worldwide for ED treatment.
• Pharmacists provide guidance on safe use.
• Be mindful of expiration dates.
• Do not use expired medication.

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. 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. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat.

Quick summary

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. Forum Nov.

User Reviews

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. Respondent has registered a record breaking 71 domain names which incorporate Complainant�s mark.� Respondent clearly knew about 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 not demonstrated bad faith under Policy �4(b)(ii).� However, the list of examples under Policy �4(b) is not exhaustive.� This cialis comparison price Panel believes Respondent�s actions have been so egregious they constitute bad faith registration and use of the domain names. See Immigration Equality v.

Side Effects

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. Forum Sept.

Patient Information Newsletter

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.

Pricing Information

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). Respondent fails to make use of a number of disputed domain names.� While there is not requirement a domain name resolve to a website (because they can be used for other purposes), holding a domain name passively can indicate bad faith.� See, e.g., Pirelli & C. 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. 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.

• The future of ED treatment may include new formulations like rapidly dissolving tablets or creams.
• Research is ongoing into stem cell therapy and gene therapy as potential long-term solutions.
• The field of telemedicine is expected to continue growing, improving access to ED consultations.
• Artificial intelligence may eventually be used to help personalize treatment plans based on big data.
• Despite advances, the foundation of treatment will remain a combination of lifestyle changes and medicine.
• Patient education is paramount for the safe and effective use of any medication, including Cialis.
• Understanding how the drug works, its benefits, and its risks empowers you to be an active participant.
• Reliable sources of information include your doctor, pharmacist, and official health organization websites.
• Be skeptical of sensationalized claims or "miracle cures" advertised online or elsewhere.
• A trusted healthcare team is your best resource for managing your health and treatment successfully.

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. 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.

How it works

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. 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.

Special Precautions

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).

Doctor Preferences

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. 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. Respondent has registered a record breaking 71 domain names which incorporate Complainant�s mark.� Respondent clearly knew about 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 not demonstrated bad faith under Policy �4(b)(ii).� However, the list of examples under Policy �4(b) is not exhaustive.� This cialis comparison price 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)."). 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.

• Cialis is often prescribed for erectile dysfunction.
• It is also used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia.
• The medication helps achieve and maintain an erection.
• Cialis is effective for up to 36 hours.
• The drug is taken 30 minutes before activity.
• It’s important to follow the prescribed dose.
• Report any allergic reactions to your doctor.
• Use Cialis responsibly to avoid side effects.
• Cialis may cause back pain or muscle aches.
• Avoid alcohol when taking Cialis.
• Share your medication history with your pharmacist.
• Cialis should not be mixed with certain medications.

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. 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).

• Cialis is effective for many men with ED.
• It can be used on an as-needed or daily basis.
• Generic Cialis offers a cheaper alternative.
• Consult your pharmacist for generic options.
• Do not crush or break Cialis tablets.
• It’s not a cure but a treatment option.
• Always take Cialis as directed.
• Avoid grapefruit products while on Cialis.
• Cialis may cause indigestion or upset stomach.
• Keep the medication away from pets.
• Discuss all medications with your healthcare provider.
• Do not use Cialis if contraindicated.

Respondent fails to make use of a number of disputed domain names.� While there is not requirement a domain name resolve to a website (because they can be used for other purposes), holding a domain name passively can indicate bad faith.� See, e.g., Pirelli & C.