Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108811

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

The Complainant relies upon International trade mark Registration No. 981336 for JARDIANCE as a word mark with a registration date of 3 September 2008 in class 5. That mark has proceeded to registration in over 40 territories.

FACTS CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein. Ever since, BOEHRINGER has become one of the top 20 companies in the pharmaceutical industry with over 53,000 employees. In 2022, net sales of the BOEHRINGER group of companies amounted to about 24.1 billion euros.

JARDIANCE (Empagliflozin) is a prescription medicine used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes, and also to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes who have known cardiovascular disease.

The Domain Name was registered on 11 June 11 2026 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the Domain Name should be transferred to it.

On July 9, 2026, following commencement of these proceedings, the Respondent sent an e-mail to the CAC in which the Respondent stated:

"I do not wish to contest the complaint and are willing to consent to transfer the domain to the complainant."

It is not necessary to consider whether the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, in light of the Respondent's consent to transfer.

It is not necessary to consider whether the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, in light of the Respondent's consent to transfer.

It is not necessary to consider whether the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, in light of the Respondent's consent to transfer.

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.

As already recorded in the Parties' Contentions section of this decision, the Respondent sent an e-mail to the CAC on 9 July 2026 in which the Respondent expressly stated that he did not wish to contest the Complaint and was willing to consent to transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.

Panels applying the Policy have long recognised that where a respondent has clearly consented to the transfer of a domain name, it is generally unnecessary to undertake a full analysis of the substantive requirements of the Policy. As recorded in section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent.