Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108638

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant relies on its rights in the trademark ACTILYSE, and in particular on the international trademark ACTILYSE no. 493578, registered and renewed since May 2, 1985. The Complainant further asserts ownership of a domain name incorporating the term “ACTILYSE” <actilyse.com> registered on October 7, 1996.

The disputed domain name <actilyse.xyz> was registered on May 5, 2026.  

The Complainant, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies founded in 1885 by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany. The Complainant is one of the top 20 companies in the pharmaceutical industry, employs approximately 54,300 people and, in 2025, achieved net sales of EUR 27.8 billion.

ACTILYSE is a pharmaceutical product of the Complainant, namely a fibrinolytic agent indicated for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, acute massive pulmonary embolism and occluded catheters.

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark ACTILYSE no. 493578, registered and renewed since May 2, 1985, and of the domain name <actilyse.com>, registered on October 7, 1996.

The disputed domain name <actilyse.xyz> was registered on May 5, 2026, and resolves to a parking page on which the disputed domain name is offered for sale for the sum of USD 1,450. The Respondent did not file a Response.

A) Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

As to the first element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its ACTILYSE trademark, as it reproduces that trademark in its entirety without the addition of any letter or word, and that the addition of the new generic top-level domain “.xyz” is insufficient to avoid a finding of identity or confusing similarity and does not alter the overall impression that the disputed domain name is connected to the trademark.

As to the second element, the Complainant submits that it is required only to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, whereupon the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, the relevant WHOIS data bearing no resemblance to it; that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant and that the Complainant has no business with the Respondent; that neither a licence nor an authorisation to use the ACTILYSE trademark or to register the disputed domain name has been granted to the Respondent; and that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page on which it is offered for sale for USD 1,450, such a general offer to sell evidencing the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests.

As to the third element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its ACTILYSE trademark, which was registered many years before the registration of the disputed domain name, and that a search engine query for the term “ACTILYSE” returns results relating exclusively to the Complainant's product, so that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the trademark at the time of registration. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent makes no active use of the disputed domain name and registered it primarily for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs, which evidences registration and use in bad faith.

B) Respondent

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court (the “CAC”) in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) and the CAC Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

The CAC verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The CAC formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced. The due date for a Response was duly set.

The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the CAC notified the Respondent of its default. The Panel was appointed in accordance with the Rules. The Panel has submitted its Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the CAC to ensure compliance with the Rules. 

The language of the proceedings is English.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.