{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102886", "time_of_filling": "2020-01-30 09:24:15", "domain_names": [ "jardiance.surf" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Innika" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a German 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.\r\n\r\nEver since, BOEHRINGER has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise with roughly 50,000 employees. The three business areas of BOEHRINGER are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2018, net sales of the BOEHRINGER group of companies amounted to around EUR 17.5 billion.\r\n\r\n“JARDIANCE”® (Empagliflozin) is a prescription medicine used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes, and also to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes who have known cardiovascular disease.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a numerous portfolio of domain names including the wording “JARDIANCE”, such as registered on April 29, 2008.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 1, 2020. \r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not cognizant of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nA. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, “JARDIANCE”.\r\n\r\n\r\nB. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nOnce such prima facie case is made, a respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “JARDIANCE”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name redirects to an online dating website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent used the dispute domain name in a way that fails to confer rights and legitimate interests, as it is used to promote unrelated services.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\n\r\nC. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive trademark “JARDIANCE”®.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name. Finally, a Google search of the term “JARDIANCE” displays results only in relation with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name redirects to an online dating website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent uses its trademark “JARDIANCE”® to promote services unrelated to the domain name, as it redirects to the website: https:\/\/cindymatches.com. Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Complainant. Respondent is obtaining commercial gain from its use of the disputed domain name and the resolving website.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.", "rights": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable to provide the Decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the international trademark “JARDIANCE”® n° 981336 registered since September 3, 2008. ", "decision_domains": { "JARDIANCE.SURF": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }