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).
- 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.
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.
ATC Code And Dosage Forms
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.
Black Box Warnings
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. Ross, FA 1250712 (Nat.
| Product | Dosage | Quantity + Bonus | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cialis Super Active | 20mg | 90 + 10 Pills | 314.14€ 299.18€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 40mg | 360 + 10 Pills | 477.87€ 455.11€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 40mg | 90 + 6 Pills | 171.35€ 163.19€ | |
| Cialis Professional | 40mg | 90 + 2 Pills | 348.59€ 331.99€ | |
| Cialis Soft Tabs | 20mg | 120 + 6 Pills | 248.64€ 236.80€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 20mg | 20 Pills | 54.72€ 52.11€ | |
| Cialis Super Active | 20mg | 60 + 8 Pills | 230.32€ 219.35€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 20mg | 30 + 4 Pills | 68.05€ 64.81€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 5mg | 270 + 10 Pills | 205.81€ 196.01€ | |
| Cialis Black | 80mg | 10 Pills | 43.27€ 41.21€ | |
| Cialis Professional | 20mg | 90 + 2 Pills | 241.49€ 229.99€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 10mg | 30 + 4 Pills | 63.32€ 60.30€ | |
| Cialis Generic | 10mg | 270 + 10 Pills | 308.71€ 294.01€ | |
| Cialis Super Active | 20mg | 30 + 6 Pills | 128.09€ 121.99€ | |
| Cialis Super Active | 20mg | 20 + 4 Pills | 92.35€ 87.95€ |
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.
NEW: Blog Post
7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the
Payment Methods
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. 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. S.p.A.
Office Hours
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
Comparison Table
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 generic cialis canada no prescription 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. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).� This Panel finds bad faith for the inactively held domain names on those grounds under Policy �4(a)(iii).
| Parameter | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Tmax | 2 hours | Time to reach peak plasma concentration |
| Half-life | 17.5 hours | Duration the drug stays active |
| Bioavailability | 84% | Percentage of dose absorbed |
Finally, Respondent has not provided accurate WHOIS information when the 71 domain names were registered.� In the commercial context, the failure to give accurate WHOIS information raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use.� Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption.� For that reason alone, this Panel is comfortable in finding bad faith registration and use of each and every domain name. The Panel finds Policy �4(a)(iii) satisfied.
- 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.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
| Brand Name | Dosage Forms | Strengths (mg) | Availability (Country) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cialis | Tablets | 5, 10, 20 | Worldwide |
| Adcirca | Capsules | 20 | North America, Europe |
| Tadalafil | Generic Tablets | 2.5, 5, 10, 20 | Worldwide |
[1] Please note that Complainant has preserved web pages from each of the Domain Names; however, the file exceeds the size limitations set forth in the Supp.
| Year | Number of Prescriptions | Growth Rate (%) | Key Markets |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 million | 5% | USA, Europe |
| 2023 | 11.2 million | 12% | North America, Asia |
| 2024 | 12.5 million | 11% | Worldwide |
Rules.� As a result, Complainant is submitting a representative sample of such web pages as Annexes 5 and 6 to this Amended Complaint.� Upon request or approval from the Panel, Complainant will submit the complete file.
Cialis Storage and Safety Information
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.
Side Effects
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