{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101231",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-06-14 10:40:07",
    "domain_names": [
        "Dulcolax.top"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "ayma"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Mr. Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein, today Germany. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and with about 140 affiliated companies world-wide and roughly 46,000 employees.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registered owner of various \"DULCOLAX\" trademarks, as indicated in more details above. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <dulcolax.top> was registered on 18 April 2016 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently automatically redirected to third party's online shop available at http:\/\/safecanadianrx.com\/products\/stomach\/dulcolax\/order\/ which encourages the visitors to purchase DULCOLAX medicines (likely not as original products of the Complainant but in its generic form as \"bisacodyl\"). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nPROTECTED RIGHTS RELIED UPON\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has extensive \"DULCOLAX\" trademark rights for goods in classes 1 and 5. For purposes of this proceeding, the Complainant relies on rights in various jurisdictions and refers to previous decisions where Panels have found that registration of a mark with a trademark authority, regardless of the location of the parties, is sufficient evidence of having rights in such mark. The Complainant further states that previous panel decisions have generally held that trademark registrations are valid and constitute prima facie evidence of ownership, validity and the exclusive right to their use. \r\n\r\nIDENTITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that Complainant's trademarks are identical to the disputed domain name (save to the top-level suffix in the disputed domain name), which is clearly evident. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant argues that the “.TOP” suffix is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademarks and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to such trademarks.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither the Complainant has been authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests; once such prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nDomain name website redirects to the website named Canadian Pharmacy on the address (URL) http:\/\/safecanadianrx.com\/ that offers to internet users Dulcolax pills, as in more detail described above. Such website also offers for sale many other pharmaceutical products, and so is attracting Internet users (through the fame of the Complainant’s trademark) who are then offered a wide range of unrelated products. \r\n\r\nBAD-FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nSeniority of Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name, as also follows from the content presented on the disputed domain website and a fact, that the Complainant's trademarks have been registered in then the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) on 16 April 2014. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or to the websites linked thereto, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of their websites and of the products promoted therein. Therefore, the requirement of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tExcerpts from WIPO and other databases regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tExcerpts on the disputed domain name from WHOIS database;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website with the Respondent's content.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is identical to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-07-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, registered owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n-\tDULCOLAX (word), International Trademark, registration date 10 December 1952, trademark no. 165781, registered for goods in class 1 (food preserving products) and class 5 (medicines, chemical products for medical and sanitary use, pharmaceutical drugs, plasters, surgical dressings, pesticides and herbicides, disinfectants.); \r\n\r\n-\tseniority of which has been also claimed for the identical EU IPO trademark \"DULCOLAX\", application number 2382059;\r\n\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DULCOLAX.TOP": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}