In 2004, approximately $39 million was spent to market and sell CIALIS brand product worldwide, U.S. sales of the CIALIS brand product totaled more than $206 million, and worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product were in excess of $550 million.� Over the years, sales of Complainant�s CIALIS brand product have steadily and significantly increased.� In 2013, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased to $2.159 billion. Most recently, for the full year 2014, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased 6% to $2.291 billion, with sales in the United States at $1.040 billion and sales outside of the United States at $1.251 billion.
Step
Action
Notes
1
Take with water
On an empty or full stomach
2
Avoid high-fat meals before
May delay absorption
3
Do not exceed prescribed dose
Risk of side effects
4
Engage in sexual activity after 1 hour
For best results
For these reasons, Complainant believes that it is reasonable to infer that the CIALIS trademark is well-known throughout the world. Because the Respondents registered the Domain Names between 2012 and 2015, Complainant's rights in the CIALIS trademark predate Respondents� registration dates, and Complainant has both senior and exclusive rights in the CIALIS mark. �Complainant also has an Internet presence, primarily through the website accessed by the domain name , that it uses to advertise and provide information regarding its pharmaceutical product.�� The domain name was registered by Complainant's predecessor-in-interest on August 10, 1999.� Complainant has used this domain name to identify a website since at least as early as June, 2001.
Office Hours
In 2004, approximately $39 million was spent to market and sell CIALIS brand product worldwide, U.S. sales of the CIALIS brand product totaled more than $206 million, and worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product were in excess of $550 million.� Over the years, sales of Complainant�s CIALIS brand product have steadily and significantly increased.� In 2013, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased to $2.159 billion. Most recently, for the full year 2014, worldwide sales of CIALIS brand product increased 6% to $2.291 billion, with sales in the United States at $1.040 billion and sales outside of the United States at $1.251 billion. For these reasons, Complainant believes that it is reasonable to infer that the CIALIS trademark is well-known throughout the world. Because the Respondents registered the Domain Names between 2012 and 2015, Complainant's rights in the CIALIS trademark predate Respondents� registration dates, and Complainant has both senior and exclusive rights in the CIALIS mark.
User Reviews
�Complainant also has an Internet presence, primarily through the website accessed by the domain name , that it uses to advertise and provide information regarding its pharmaceutical product.�� The domain name was registered by Complainant's predecessor-in-interest on August 10, 1999.� Complainant has used this domain name to identify a website since at least as early as June, 2001. Complainant submits and prior Panels have agreed that the CIALIS mark is an invented word that has a high degree of individuality, inherent distinctiveness and no common colloquial use.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Clarkepharma Co., D2007-0447 (WIPO, May 25, 2007).� An invented word which has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness is deemed to be a highly distinctive mark. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Telsra/Telecomunicaciones Serafin Rodriguez y Asociados, D2003-0247 (WIPO, July 21, 2003) (determined that since the mark TELSTRA is an invented word and given its nature, widespread advertisement and exposure to consumers worldwide, the mark is highly distinctive).� A domain name which differs very slightly from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar where that trademark is highly distinctive.� See Credit Suisse Group v.
Market Demand Trends
VPDD UBGM ltd, D2007-0867 (WIPO, September 10, 2007).� �� (3)��� The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark. The Domain Names are confusing similar to Complainant�s CIALIS mark.� The addition of generic or descriptive words such as "buy," "cheap," and "generic," to Complainant's highly distinctive CIALIS trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.� Prior Forum Panels have noted that, "the mere addition of a generic or descriptive abbreviation to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of respondent's domain name. "� Lilly ICOS LLC v. Joe Pestrak, FA 0504000464558 (NAF, May 31, 2005).� As a result, the addition of generic or descriptive cialis pricing 20mg words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Andrew Riegel, FA0609000788279 (NAF, October 18, 2006) (finding the addition of the generic term "buy" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not overcome the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the CIALIS mark); Lilly ICOS LLC v. Complainant submits and prior Panels have agreed that the CIALIS mark is an invented word that has a high degree of individuality, inherent distinctiveness and no common colloquial use.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v.
Brand Name
Manufacturer
Price Comparison
Approval Status
Tadalafil FDA-approved
Various pharmacies
Lower than brand name
Approved worldwide
TadaFlex
Generic Labs
Cheaper
Approved in many countries
Taldex
MedPharm
Similar to branded
Approved
Clarkepharma Co., D2007-0447 (WIPO, May 25, 2007).� An invented word which has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness is deemed to be a highly distinctive mark.
Product
Dosage
Quantity + Bonus
Price
Cialis Super Active
20mg
10 Pills
55.64€ 52.99€
Cialis Generic
5mg
90 + 6 Pills
115.91€ 110.39€
Cialis Generic
40mg
120 + 8 Pills
206.98€ 197.12€
Cialis Super Active
20mg
180 + 20 Pills
521.59€ 496.75€
Cialis Generic
2.5mg
360 + 10 Pills
260.03€ 247.65€
Cialis Generic
5mg
120 + 6 Pills
132.92€ 126.59€
Cialis Soft Tabs
20mg
180 + 8 Pills
353.17€ 336.35€
Cialis Generic
20mg
30 + 4 Pills
68.05€ 64.81€
Cialis Generic
60mg
10 Pills
41.22€ 39.26€
Cialis Soft Tabs
20mg
60 + 4 Pills
159.37€ 151.78€
Cialis Original
20mg
22 + 2 Pills
129.20€ 123.05€
Cialis Generic
40mg
20 Pills
59.47€ 56.64€
Cialis Generic
2.5mg
10 Pills
28.51€ 27.15€
See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Telsra/Telecomunicaciones Serafin Rodriguez y Asociados, D2003-0247 (WIPO, July 21, 2003) (determined that since the mark TELSTRA is an invented word and given its nature, widespread advertisement and exposure to consumers worldwide, the mark is highly distinctive).� A domain name which differs very slightly from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar where that trademark is highly distinctive.� See Credit Suisse Group v. VPDD UBGM ltd, D2007-0867 (WIPO, September 10, 2007).� �� (3)��� The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark. The Domain Names are confusing similar to Complainant�s CIALIS mark.� The addition of generic or descriptive words such as "buy," "cheap," and "generic," to Complainant's highly distinctive CIALIS trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.� Prior Forum Panels have noted that, "the mere addition of a generic or descriptive abbreviation to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of respondent's domain name. "� Lilly ICOS LLC v.
Manufacturers And Registration
Moreover, as previous Panels have held, "rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant." See Eli Lilly and Company v. media/broadcasting, Lee Shung, D2010-1079 (WIPO, September 14, 2010) (determining that the respondent did not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain <36cialis.com> where the respondent sold unauthorized or counterfeit products of the complainant).� Respondents clearly chose the Domain Names in order to create an impression of association with Complainant and Complainant's well-known CIALIS mark.� In light of these factors, it is apparent from the websites associated with the Domain Names that the Respondents are attempting to capitalize on the valuable reputation and goodwill of the CIALIS mark to direct Internet users to its websites.�� � ���(2)� Respondents are not authorized by Complainant to use the CIALIS trademark.
Side Effects
Payment Methods
Joe Pestrak, FA 0504000464558 (NAF, May 31, 2005).� As a result, the addition of generic or descriptive cialis pricing 20mg words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Andrew Riegel, FA0609000788279 (NAF, October 18, 2006) (finding the addition of the generic term "buy" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not overcome the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the CIALIS mark); Lilly ICOS LLC v. Jay Kim, D2004-0891 (WIPO, January 28, 2005) (finding the addition of the generic word "generic" and the generic letter "a" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark); and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (determining that the addition of the words "drug", "online", "buying" and "guide" to Complainant's registered CIALIS trademark did not eliminate the confusing similarity between the CIALIS mark and the domain name because the additional words did not distinguish the owner of the disputed name from Complainant).� In the present case, Respondents have merely added generic and/or descriptive words and phrases to the CIALIS mark in the Domain Names.� Respondents� addition of these words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark. Additionally, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name to render the domain name confusingly similar.� EAuto v. Triple S.
Purchase Cialis only from licensed pharmacies.
Verify the medication’s packaging for authenticity.
Beware of counterfeit Cialis sold online.
Store Cialis in a cool, dry place.
Keep Cialis out of reach of children.
Do not use Cialis if you have heart issues.
Discuss your medical history before use.
Report any adverse reactions to your doctor.
Cialis is contraindicated with certain medications.
Do not exceed the prescribed dosage.
Be aware of possible side effects like dizziness.
Consult your doctor for proper usage guidance.
Auto Parts, D2000-0047 (WIPO, March 24, 2000).� In the case at hand, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (finding that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the CIALIS trademark because it incorporated the distinctive CIALIS mark in its entirety) (Annex 3, N).� With the exception of the generic and/or descriptive words and phrases, the Domain Names consist of Complainant's CIALIS mark in its entirety.� Thus, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's CIALIS trademark. ]������� The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. ����������� �� (1)��� Respondents are not using the Domain Names for a legitimate business purpose. Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.� There is lilly cialis no evidence that the Respondents have been commonly known by the term "CIALIS" or any of the corresponding Domain Names.� All of the active websites associated with the Domain Names resolve to the same networks which promote and allegedly sell �Generic� CIALIS brand product, which have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") or any other health authority and are unlawful pharmaceutical products.� To date, there is no "generic" version of CIALIS brand product approved by the FDA or any other health authority.� As a result, any "generic" CIALIS product is an unlawful, counterfeit pharmaceutical product.�� By using the mark CIALIS in the Domain Names, the Respondents are luring consumers in search of Complainant's CIALIS brand product to websites that promote "generic" and brand name pharmaceutical products, including products which are arguably competitive with Complainant's CIALIS product.� Such use does not demonstrate a legitimate right or interest in the Domain Names. See Eli Lilly and Company v.
Are There Alternative Names for the Brand and Generic Cialis?
Jay Kim, D2004-0891 (WIPO, January 28, 2005) (finding the addition of the generic word "generic" and the generic letter "a" to Complainant's CIALIS mark did not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark); and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (determining that the addition of the words "drug", "online", "buying" and "guide" to Complainant's registered CIALIS trademark did not eliminate the confusing similarity between the CIALIS mark and the domain name because the additional words did not distinguish the owner of the disputed name from Complainant).� In the present case, Respondents have merely added generic and/or descriptive words and phrases to the CIALIS mark in the Domain Names.� Respondents� addition of these words and phrases to the Domain Names does not negate the distinctiveness of Complainant's CIALIS mark. Additionally, when a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety that creates sufficient similarity between a mark and a domain name to render the domain name confusingly similar.� EAuto v. Triple S. Auto Parts, D2000-0047 (WIPO, March 24, 2000).� In the case at hand, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CIALIS mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety.� See Lilly ICOS LLC v.
Pharmacy Availability
Dan Eccles, D2004-0750 (WIPO, November 8, 2004) (finding that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the CIALIS trademark because it incorporated the distinctive CIALIS mark in its entirety) (Annex 3, N).� With the exception of the generic and/or descriptive words and phrases, the Domain Names consist of Complainant's CIALIS mark in its entirety.� Thus, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's CIALIS trademark. ]������� The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. ����������� �� (1)��� Respondents are not using the Domain Names for a legitimate business purpose. Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.� There is lilly cialis no evidence that the Respondents have been commonly known by the term "CIALIS" or any of the corresponding Domain Names.� All of the active websites associated with the Domain Names resolve to the same networks which promote and allegedly sell �Generic� CIALIS brand product, which have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") or any other health authority and are unlawful pharmaceutical products.� To date, there is no "generic" version of CIALIS brand product approved by the FDA or any other health authority.� As a result, any "generic" CIALIS product is an unlawful, counterfeit pharmaceutical product.�� By using the mark CIALIS in the Domain Names, the Respondents are luring consumers in search of Complainant's CIALIS brand product to websites that promote "generic" and brand name pharmaceutical products, including products which are arguably competitive with Complainant's CIALIS product.� Such use does not demonstrate a legitimate right or interest in the Domain Names.
Comparison Table
See 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)) (Annex 3, P) and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Alexey Stoun, D2006-1170 (WIPO, November 16, 2006) (finding that the registrant did not have any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain because registrant was using the mark CIALIS in the domain at issue to direct consumers in search of CIALIS brand product to a website which advertised "generic" CIALIS product as well as competitive products).� While approximately 10 of the websites associated with the Domain Names are not currently active, it is apparent from the Respondents� use of the �active� Domain Names that all of the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.� Prior panels have held that even passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use and registration.� In Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO, February 18, 2000), WIPO recognized that a respondent's inaction (e.g. passive holding) could represent bad faith use of a domain name under certain circumstances.� The decision noted that the determination as to what circumstances constituted "certain circumstances" worthy of a bad faith determination would be fact specific to each case.� In Telstra, some of the particular circumstances leading to a finding of bad faith included: (1) complainant's mark had a strong reputation and was widely known; (2) respondent failed to show any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name; and (3) it was impossible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or trademark infringement.� Such factors are present in the case at hand.� As set forth in detail above, Complainant's CIALIS mark has a strong reputation and is widely known throughout the world.� In addition, Respondents have no apparent rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names.� As described above, Respondents are using Complainant's CIALIS trademark in other domain names to attract Internet consumers to its websites, which are online pharmacies advertising and selling counterfeit versions of Complainant�s CIALIS brand product in violation of Complainant�s intellectual property rights and various national laws concerning the sale of pharmaceuticals.� With respect to the few �inactive� Domain Names, there is no plausible use of the associated websites by Respondents that would not be illegitimate.� Respondents� registration of multiple domain names which incorporate Complainant's distinctive CIALIS mark further demonstrates Respondents� improper conduct.� In light of these factors, Respondents' "passive holding" of some of the Domain Names amounts to use in bad faith. 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)) (Annex 3, P) and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Alexey Stoun, D2006-1170 (WIPO, November 16, 2006) (finding that the registrant did not have any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain because registrant was using the mark CIALIS in the domain at issue to direct consumers in search of CIALIS brand product to a website which advertised "generic" CIALIS product as well as competitive products).� While approximately 10 of the websites associated with the Domain Names are not currently active, it is apparent from the Respondents� use of the �active� Domain Names that all of the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.� Prior panels have held that even passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use and registration.� In Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO, February 18, 2000), WIPO recognized that a respondent's inaction (e.g. passive holding) could represent bad faith use of a domain name under certain circumstances.� The decision noted that the determination as to what circumstances constituted "certain circumstances" worthy of a bad faith determination would be fact specific to each case.� In Telstra, some of the particular circumstances leading to a finding of bad faith included: (1) complainant's mark had a strong reputation and was widely known; (2) respondent failed to show any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name; and (3) it was impossible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or trademark infringement.� Such factors are present in the case at hand.� As set forth in detail above, Complainant's CIALIS mark has a strong reputation and is widely known throughout the world.� In addition, Respondents have no apparent rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names.� As described above, Respondents are using Complainant's CIALIS trademark in other domain names to attract Internet consumers to its websites, which are online pharmacies advertising and selling counterfeit versions of Complainant�s CIALIS brand product in violation of Complainant�s intellectual property rights and various national laws concerning the sale of pharmaceuticals.� With respect to the few �inactive� Domain Names, there is no plausible use of the associated websites by Respondents that would not be illegitimate.� Respondents� registration of multiple domain names which incorporate Complainant's distinctive CIALIS mark further demonstrates Respondents� improper conduct.� In light of these factors, Respondents' "passive holding" of some of the Domain Names amounts to use in bad faith. Moreover, as previous Panels have held, "rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant." See Eli Lilly and Company v.
What is Cialis used for?
media/broadcasting, Lee Shung, D2010-1079 (WIPO, September 14, 2010) (determining that the respondent did not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain <36cialis.com> where the respondent sold unauthorized or counterfeit products of the complainant).� Respondents clearly chose the Domain Names in order to create an impression of association with Complainant and Complainant's well-known CIALIS mark.� In light of these factors, it is apparent from the websites associated with the Domain Names that the Respondents are attempting to capitalize on the valuable reputation and goodwill of the CIALIS mark to direct Internet users to its websites.�� � ���(2)� Respondents are not authorized by Complainant to use the CIALIS trademark.
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.
