{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101285",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-09-09 10:13:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "PRAXBIND.XYZ"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Huang ChaoQiong - N\/A"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant 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 and has today about 140 affiliated companies world-wide with roughly 46,000 employees. The two main business areas of Boehringer are: Human Pharmaceuticals and Animal Health. \r\n\r\n“PRAXBIND” is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab) indicated in patients treated with Pradaxa® when reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran is needed for emergency surgery\/urgent procedures and f in life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on July 16th, 2016 by the Respondent “Huang ChaoQiong”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks PRAXBIND® and domain names associated.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of completeness, the Panel summarizes below the Complainant's main contentions:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the domain name is identical to its prior trademarks.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that he is not related in any way with the Complainant. It appears that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that Complainant has never authorized or licensed the PRAXBIND® mark to the Respondent. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the domain name points to a webpage displaying sponsored links and that past panels have concluded that there is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the Respondent uses a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website unrelated to the complainant. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <praxbind.xyz>.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <praxbind.xyz> is for sale. The SEDO’s platform minimum offer is 90 USD, which constitutes more than the domain name out-of-pocket costs. Past panels have held that registering a domain name identical to a trademark in order to offer it to sell constitutes bad faith registration. The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name displays sponsored links only to attracting internet traffic. Past panels have held such us constitutes bad faith use and registration (WIPO Case No. D2008-0422, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Transure Enterprise Ltd). Accordingly, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "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).\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Jose Checa"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-10-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a portfolio of brands including the word “PRAXBIND” in several countries, including the International trademark PRAXBIND® number 1159336 registered on March 12th, 2013.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of domain names including the wording “PRAXBIND”, such as <praxbind.com> registered on October 2nd, 2012.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PRAXBIND.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}