{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102088",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-07-13 09:33:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "spiolto.online"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Daria Baskova)",
    "respondent": [
        " RODRIGO QUEZADA ZAMBRANO"
    ],
    "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 50,000 employees. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that SPIOLTO is the trademark and the trade name for a medical product produced by the Complainant, indicated as a maintenance bronchodilator treatment to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that it is the owner of an international trademark registration for the word \"SPIOLTO\", registered in several countries. The Complainant adds that it is also the owner of the domain name <spiolto.com> registered on October 24, 2011.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 15, 2018. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that, taking into account the factual circumstances set out below, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that on June 27, 2018, a cease-and-desist letter was sent by e-mail to the Respondent and that the Respondent has not given any response to this cease-and-desist letter.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the information regarding the Respondent is restricted in order to protect the Respondent's privacy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that, due to the restriction of information on the Respondent published on the Whois, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent is known as \"SPIOLTO\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant declares that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark \"SPIOLTO\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it has not given any authorization to the Respondent to apply for registration of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the Disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that, taking into account the arguments set out below, the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the Disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark \"SPIOLTO\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the trademark \"SPIOLTO\" is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since July 27, 2015.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant declares that a Google search for the term “SPIOLTO” in the geographical zone of the Respondent results in multiple search results linked to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant takes the view that, given the reputation and fame of the Complainant and its trademark, as well as the prior registration of an almost identical official domain name by the Complainant, the Respondent was aware of the existence of the prior rights of the Complainant at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the choice of the new gTLD “.online” is even likely to increase the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, since it suggests that the Disputed domain names leads to the official website or online marketplace for this particular product marketed by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, but to a parking page with pay-per-click links and considers that this constitutes bad faith use of the domain name under the doctrine of passive holding. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that, by registering and using the Disputed domain name, it seems clear that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant to register its trademark as domain name in the \".online\" extension.\r\n\r\nThe Compainant adds that, by failing to reply to the cease-and-desist letter, the Respondent has not provided a response to justify that the Disputed domain name is registered and used in good faith.  \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": "2018-08-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the international trademark registration No. 1117164, \"SPIOLTO\", registered on March 26, 2012, for goods and services in class 5.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 15, 2018.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SPIOLTO.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}