Sole Panelist – Adv. Adi Barkan-Lev
The decision was rendered on April 30, 2025.
Background and arguments of the parties:
The Complainant, an Israeli company belonging to the Fox-Wizel Group, is engaged in the import, marketing, and online sale of fashion and beauty brands. The Complainant filed a complaint for the transfer of the domain name terminalpharm.co.il (the “Domain Name”), which is held by the Respondent. The Domain Name was registered on April 20, 2024.
The Complainant asserted that it operates the fashion and beauty e-commerce website terminalx.com, which was launched nearly a decade ago. It holds several trademarks registered in Israel, including the mark “TERMINAL X.” The Respondent registered the Domain Name in April 2024, and apparently an active website exists under the Domain Name, offering products and services.
The Complainant argued that Terminal X is one of the leading e-commerce websites in Israel and that the Respondent is using the central component of its trademark—the word “Terminal”—while copying the overall look and feel of the Complainant’s site. The Complainant claimed that the Respondent’s website is a complete imitation, designed to mislead users and generate financial profit at the Complainant’s expense. The Complainant stated that attempts to contact the Respondent were unsuccessful, and that although it had temporarily succeeded in removing the Respondent’s site from the internet, the Respondent changed service providers and the site resumed operation.
The Respondent did not submit a response to the complaint.
Decision:
The IL-DRP mechanism of the Israel Internet Association is an alternative dispute resolution procedure intended to provide a swift resolution to disputes concerning the allocation of domain names under Israel’s country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). The procedure is conducted in accordance with the Association’s Rules for Dispute Resolution. The Respondent agreed to be bound by these Rules upon registration of the Domain Name.
According to the Rules, a dispute as to the allocation of a domain name to its holder may be brought before the IL-DRP by the Complainant, provided all the following conditions are met:
- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, trade name, company name, or legal entity registration of the Complainant;
- The Complainant has rights in the name and the Respondent has none; and
- The Complainant alleges, and must demonstrate, that the Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant demonstrated ownership of four trademarks registered in Israel that include the element “Terminal.” Its business has operated under the commercial name Terminal X, including through the domain terminalx.com, since at least 2017. While the marks also include the letter “X,” this is considered a secondary element; the dominant component is the word “Terminal.”
The word “Terminal” is arbitrary in the context of the Complainant’s services and is therefore strongly distinctive. The Domain Name combines “Terminal” with “Pharm,” along with the “.co.il” suffix. The word “Pharm” is a descriptive addition and does not reduce the similarity between the Domain Name and the registered mark. The similarity is sufficient to create a high likelihood of consumer confusion.
The domain suffix is disregarded for the purpose of evaluating similarity between the disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks, as it is a common suffix that merely indicates that the domain name relates to commercial activity under Israel’s ccTLD.
The Complainant submitted evidence of its rights in the marks containing the dominant element “Terminal” and stated that it did not authorize the Respondent to use the registered mark or its commercial name. In the absence of any response from the Respondent, despite repeated attempts to contact him, it appears that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name—certainly none that outweighs the Complainant’s interest.
Regarding bad faith, the Complainant noted that its trademarks were registered approximately a decade ago and have been in use since then, whereas the Domain Name was registered only one year prior and became active only a few months before the complaint. The Complainant claimed that its registered mark and related commercial activity are well known to Israeli consumers, and that the Respondent’s blatant imitation of its website demonstrates full awareness of the mark and a deliberate intent to exploit its reputation.
The Panel accepted the Complainant’s arguments. Considering that the Complainant’s website includes a dedicated pharmacy category, and noting the strong similarity in both design and content between the Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites, it appears that the Domain Name was registered with the intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business or to gain a commercial advantage by creating confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or nature of the Respondent’s site or its future offerings.
The Panel therefore decided to uphold the complaint and ordered the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.
The above constitutes a summary of the decision. Click here for the full decision (PDF, Hebrew)