{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101967",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-04-18 13:40:00",
    "domain_names": [
        "mirapex.xyz"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOEHRINGER Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Pelres Investments Ltd."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a member of a German pharmaceutical group of companies. This group was founded by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein in 1885. The Complainant explains that today the group has become a global pharmaceutical enterprise with about 140 affiliated companies and approximately 46,000 employees. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that MIRAPEX (pramipexole dihydrochloride) tablets are a prescription medicine that is used to treat the signs and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that this medicine has been a trusted treatment for Parkinson’s disease for over 12 years and that in clinical studies MIRAPEX was shown to significantly improve patients’ motor scores and their ability to perform activities of daily living. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that it is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks including the word MIRAPEX registered in several countries and that it is also the owner of the domain name <mirapex.com> registered on February 27, 1998.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 29, 2018. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Disputed domain name has been used to redirect users to a website that offers various pharmaceutical products for sale, including the Complainant's products and the Complainant's competitors products.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that  the Disputed domain name <mirapex.xyz> is identical to its trademarks MIRAPEX and domain names associated. The Complainant observes that the Disputed domain name includes in its entirety the above-mentioned trademark without any addition of letter or word.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the top-level domain “.xyz” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark and that it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names associated. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is well established that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and that once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Complainant adds that if the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the trademark MIRAPEX in a domain name or on a website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant declares that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Disputed domain name points to another website known as “Pharmacy XL”, directly on a page related to the Complainant’s trademark MIRAPEX and its product.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent's website displays the Complainant’s trademarks and its products for sale and also displays products from competitors of the Complainant. The Complainant argues that this fact demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and of its trademark MIRAPEX.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the Respondent's offer of pharmaceutical drugs also from the Complainant's competitors shows bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s MIRAPEX trademark at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name, because the latter resolves to a website that makes direct reference to the MIRAPEX products and the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent is in the business of the sale of pharmaceutical products, and for this reason was aware of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of registration of the Disputed domain name, and deliberately sought to use their goodwill to attract Internet users seeking the Complainant's product. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed domain name with the aim of deceiving Internet users seeking the Complainant's product, so as to generate revenue from selling unrelated or competing pharmaceutical products. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the fact that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed domain name intentionally to attract visitors for commercial gain by confusion with the Complainant's trademarks constitutes bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed 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 Disputed 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 Disputed 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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark 'MIRAPEX', including the EU trademark No 003364585, registered on January 25, 2006, for goods and services in class 5.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 29, 2018. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MIRAPEX.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}