Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-109068

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

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark registration for TRAJENTA:

• International trademark no. 935517 for TRAJENTA, registered on August 3, 2007.

The Complainant also owns trademark registrations for CYLTEZO:

• International trademark no. 1242575 for CYLTEZO, registered on January 19, 2015;
• US trademark no. 4792656 for CYLTEZO, registered on August 18, 2015.

The disputed domain names <trajenta.shop> and <cyltezo.shop> were both registered on 10 October 2026.

The Complainant is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies, started in 1885 by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein. The Complainant currently has 54,300 employees with net sales of the Boehringer Ingelheim group amounting to EUR 27.8 billion in 2025. The business is divided into two business areas: Human Pharma and Animal Health.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. 

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar 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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

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

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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a complainant to show that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.

A registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence of the holder’s rights in the mark. The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations for the TRAJENTA and CYLTEZO marks, registered before the disputed domain names were registered.

Each of the disputed domain names incorporates one of the Complainant’s TRAJENTA and CYLTEZO trademarks in its entirety, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”. As a standard technical requirement of registration, the gTLD is generally disregarded under the first element.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of that domain name.

In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant has provided evidence that it obtained trademark registrations for the TRAJENTA and CYLTEZO marks long before the dates on which the disputed domain names were registered. The Complainant states that it has not approved, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names.

There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names resolve to pages where they are offered for sale for USD 1,450 each. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the offer to sell, which exceeds the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs, evidences the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in them.

Further, the Respondent did not submit a Response in the present case and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names sufficient to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its TRAJENTA and CYLTEZO marks when registering the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent registered them only in order to sell them for profit.

The Complainant’s TRAJENTA and CYLTEZO marks were registered long before the disputed domain names were registered; they are coined terms with no meaning other than as identifiers of the Complainant’s products. It is therefore highly implausible that the Respondent selected these terms by coincidence. Moreover, the Respondent registered not one but two domain names, each reproducing a different registered trademark of the Complainant in its entirety. In the Panel’s view, this pattern indicates that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant and its marks.

The disputed domain names resolve to pages offering them for sale for USD 1,450 each. Apart from this offer, the Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain names. Panels have accepted that a general offer to sell a domain name to the public may constitute evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, where the price exceeds the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Section 3.1.1. Such offering may be considered as evidence of targeting the Respondent’s trademarks and evidences the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.

The Panel further notes that the Respondent has not submitted a Response and has offered no explanation for its registration of the disputed domain names, nor any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use.

Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Panel cannot conceive of any plausible good-faith use to which the disputed domain names could be put by the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.