{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101293", "time_of_filling": "2016-09-16 14:58:36", "domain_names": [ "mobic.website", "mobic.press", "mobic.club", "mobic.tech", "mobic.host" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)", "respondent": [ "Albert Sadykov" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant (\"Boehringer\") is a 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 a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise which today has about 140 affiliated companies world-wide with roughly 46,000 employees. The two main business areas of Boehringer are: Human Pharmaceuticals and Animal Health. In 2013 alone, net sales of the Boehringer group amounted to about EUR 14.1 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademark MOBIC n°563599 registered on November 28th, 1990. The trademark MOBIC has also been registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH) since April 16th, 2014.\r\n\r\nMOBIC (generic name: meloxicam) is a prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It works by reducing hormones that cause inflammation and pain in the body. It is used to treat pain or inflammation caused by osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis in adults and children.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , , , , (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Names”) were registered on August 21st, 2016. According to the WHOIS data base of the concerned registrar, NameCheap, Inc., the Respondent Albert Sadykov is the registrant and the administrative contact of each of the Disputed Domain Names.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Names , and have pointed to inactive website since their registration and the two other disputed domain names, and , resolve to websites linking online drugstores of MOBIC’s pharmaceutical drugs, which offer them without prescription or authorization. These sponsored web links redirect to online drugstores and offer drugs of Complainant’s competitors for sale.\r\n\r\nOn August 30th, 2016, a cease-and-desist letter was sent by the Complainant’s agent to the Respondent inviting it to justify the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent did not reply to this cease-and-desist letter.", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nA. COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about 140 affiliated companies world-wide. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademark MOBIC n°563599 registered on November 28th, 1990. The trademark MOBIC® has also been registered in the TradeMark Clearing House (TMCH) since April 16th, 2014.\r\n\r\nThe MOBIC trademark designates the Complainant’s drug Mobic (generic name: meloxicam) which is a prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It works by reducing hormones that cause inflammation and pain in the body. It is used to treat pain or inflammation caused by osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis in adults and children.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , , , (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Names”) were registered on August 21st, 2016, by the Respondent, who is the current domain name holder of each of the Disputed Domain Names. \r\n\r\nOn August 30th of 2016, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Respondent by the Complainant’s agent inviting the Respondent to justify the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent did not provide any response to this cease-and-desist letter.\r\n \r\nEach of the Disputed Domain Names is identical to the MOBIC trademark, because each domain name contains the entirety of the trademark and a gTLD.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also submits that the addition of the new gTLD suffixes “.website”, “.press”, “.club”, “.tech”, “.host” is not sufficient to avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Names are identical to the Complainant's trademarks and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the inclusion of the TLD in each of the Disputed Domain Names is not relevant when determining if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the term MOBIC is a fanciful term, only known in relation to the Complainant. It has no meaning whatsoever in English, French or in any other language.\r\n\r\nThus, each of the Disputed Domain Names is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.\r\n\r\nThe 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 out, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nIn support of making its prima facie case, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names as, according to the WHOIS information of the concerned registrar, the registrant and administrative contact of each of the Disputed Domain Names is Albert Sadykov.\r\n\r\nNor does the Complainant carry out any activity for, or have any business with, the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trademark, or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Names by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , and have pointed to inactive websites since their registration and the two other disputed domain names, and resolve to websites linking online drugstores of MOBIC’s pharmaceutical drugs, which offer them without prescription or authorization. These sponsored web links redirect to online drugstores and offer drugs of Complainant’s competitors for sale.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant contends that these considerations demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent has not developed a legitimate use in respect of the domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s websites also offer for sale MOBIC products and other pharmaceutical products, and so are attracting Internet users by taking advantage of the fame of the Complainant’s trademark in order to offer a wide range of competitive products. The Respondent also increases the confusion by the lack of displaying any disclaimer or indication of the MOBIC’s product owner being the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe foregoing behaviour shows that the Respondent is using the domain names only to divert consumers to its websites. Respondent cannot plausibly argue that it did not intentionally use these website presentations in order to benefit from the goodwill of the MOBIC mark.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and has registered and used the domain names only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\n The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Names are identical with the Complainant's registered trademark MOBIC, also registered in the TradeMark Clearing House (TMCH) since April 16th, 2014, which are used to designate the Complainant’s drug MOBIC which is a prescribed drug used to treat pain or inflammation caused by osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis in adults and children.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the following Disputed Domain Names, , and point to an inactive website, further showing bad faith use.\r\n\r\nBy registering and using these domain names, it seems clear that the Respondent has maintained the domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from registering its MOBIC trademark as a domain name in the respective extensions.\r\n\r\nThe two others disputed domain names, and resolve to websites that link online drugstores purporting to offer the Complainant’s MOBIC pharmaceutical drugs of the Complainant, without any authorization.\r\n\r\nIt is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the trademark MOBIC when it registered the Disputed Domain Names, because the aim of the registration was clearly to use them to offer MOBIC drugs for sale by redirection of internet hits to external unofficial drugstores. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent deliberately sought to use the Complainant’s trademark goodwill to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s MOBIC products. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in order to deceive Internet users seeking the Complainant’s product, in order to generate revenue from redirecting internet consumers to unofficial drugstores selling unrelated or competing pharmaceutical products. This constitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThere is also evidence of bad faith use. Respondent is using the disputed domain names in order to redirect Internet traffic to for-profit on-line drugstores that sell unauthorized products linked and in competition with those of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names and is using them in bad faith.\r\n\r\nB.RESPONDENT: The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and is in default.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes the observations in the recent decision in similar circumstances in Case No 100053, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company v. Blupea c\/o Janepanas, Sirinarin and will therefore decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, drawing such inferences from the Respondent’s default that are considered appropriate according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. It is also noted in that decision that it was said in Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Marco Costa, NAF case No. 908572, that “the Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory”. The Panel will therefore proceed along those lines.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is 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).", "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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "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).", "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": [ "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-10-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted, and supported by evidence that the Panel accepts, that it is the owner of the international trademark MOBIC n°563599 registered on November 28th, 1990 and that the trademark MOBIC has also been registered in the TradeMark Clearing House (TMCH) since April 16th, 2014.", "decision_domains": { "MOBIC.WEBSITE": "TRANSFERRED", "MOBIC.PRESS": "TRANSFERRED", "MOBIC.CLUB": "TRANSFERRED", "MOBIC.TECH": "TRANSFERRED", "MOBIC.HOST": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }