{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103141",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-06-29 10:23:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "mirapex.sucks"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Honey Salt Ltd."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "ESQwire.com, P.C.",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the owner of the MIRAPEX trademark. The disputed domain name <mirapex.sucks> was registered on 17 June 2020. The Complainant’s MIRAPEX trademark registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name consists of the term “MIRAPEX” and the gTLD “.sucks”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims to be a global pharmaceutical company that was founded in 1885 in Germany. The Complainant claims to have about 140 affiliated companies and around 50.000 employees world-wide. The Complainant asserts that its net sales amounted to EUR 18.997 million in 2019 (worldwide and at group level). The Complainant claims that it manufactures and sells, inter alia, pramipexole dihydrochloride tablets under the MIRAPEX trademark. This is a prescription medicine to treat Parkinson’s disease.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims to have been formed on or around February 12, 2020 to register and hold domain names for the benefit of the organisation Everything.sucks Inc. (hereafter “Everything.sucks”). The Respondent argues that Everything.sucks is a non-profit organisation and communications forum for social activism. Everything.sucks created a platform on which users may create commentary pages and leave feedback related to causes, individuals, products and companies on a “Wiki” styled directory.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent, when a commentary and feedback page is created by a user at Everything.sucks, Everything.sucks may register the corresponding .sucks domain name to bring attention to the “Wiki Page” created by the user. The Respondent claims to have thousands of domain names under management with each domain name being used to direct users to a commentary and feedback page that references a particular cause, individual, brand, company or product.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that it registered the disputed domain name and redirected it to the corresponding Everything.Sucks Wiki page for the “Mirapex” medicine. According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name follows the same convention as the Respondent’s other domain names, i.e. a trademark coupled with a descriptive TLD (.sucks). The Respondent submitted that its goal is to develop its domain names (including the disputed domain name) to support the websites located at its platform and to resell them to parties that may wish to use these domain names (including the disputed domain name) for expanded or enhanced commentary or feedback purposes on their own site.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that it registered the disputed domain name for a fair use purpose, i.e. to promote free speech, commentary and feedback referencing Mirapex medicines, and not to confuse consumers, compete with the trademark holder or sell competing products.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to an active website. On this website, a banner is posted with the message: “domains for sale. Is www.mirapex.sucks available? Click here to check”. The disputed domain name is offered for sale via Sedo (through www.sedo.com) for the price of 199 USD. The website available via the disputed domain name contains general information on the Mirapex medicine (including its purposes and active elements), plus some side effects which are claimed to be common, some unsupported general assertions and a couple of reviews, listings (e.g. social media listing) and external links (e.g. to news sites).\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided related to the disputed domain name.  ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered MIRAPEX trademark.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s MIRAPEX trademark in its entirety, only adding the gTLD “.sucks”. The generic top level suffix does not add distinctiveness to the disputed domain name and may be disregarded when considering whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which a complainant has rights. \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is used to divert consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS information as the disputed domain name and has not acquired trademarks rights on the term MIRAPEX.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorised by him to use the trademark MIRAPEX trademark in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant claims that it does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying information regarding the Complainant, several links loosely related to the Complainant’s products, and the message “domains for sale”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further points out that the disputed domain name is offered for sale on Sedo for 199 USD. According to the Complainant, this general offer to sell the disputed domain name evidences the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is used to criticise numerous other companies, not only the Complainant, and that the Respondent registered the corresponding other domain names, which are also offered for sale.\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent had prior knowledge of the potential rights of the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name is held for the purpose of selling it. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its MIRAPEX trademark and associated domain name(s). The MIRAPEX trademark is registered in the TMCH (Trademark Clearing House).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s MIRAPEX trademark at the time of its registration, since the disputed domain name resolves to a website that refers directly to the Complainant’s MIRAPEX products and to the Complainant itself. Given the content of the website available via the disputed domain name, the Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant reiterates that the disputed domain name is offered for sale on Sedo for 199 USD and that the website available via the disputed domain name publishes a message “domains for sale”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also reiterates that the disputed domain name is used to criticise numerous other companies, and that the Respondent registered the corresponding domain names which are also offered for sale.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only to capitalise on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainant's trademark rights, which evinces bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered MIRAPEX trademark.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent, its use of the disputed domain name is a recognised form of “fair use”. The Respondent claims that it is not a so called “cybersquatter”. \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n1.\tThe Respondent asserts that it uses the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes of criticism and free speech. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in connection with a commentary and criticism website involving the Complainant’s Mirapex product. This wiki style criticism and feedback page is one of many pages that can be found at Everything.Sucks (a portal to critique hundreds of companies, people and products of all types). According to the Respondent, the Complainant’s product is one of many that are reviewed and critiqued at Everything.Sucks. The website linked to the disputed domain name contains user generated comments and commentary about the referenced brand or product.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that visitors are not confused or mislead since the pejorative gTLD “.sucks” clearly indicates that the domain name is connected to criticism and feedback. By using the “.sucks” gTLD, it is clear to visitors that the disputed domain name and the website itself are not affiliated with the Complainant. Also, from the content of the website associated with the disputed domain name, it is clear that the Respondent does not purport to be associated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that its registration and use of the disputed domain name falls within Section 4(c)(iii) of the Policy since the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that its fair use is protected by the right to freedom of expression or freedom of speech (as protected by many national laws and international conventions such as article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States). \r\n\r\nThe Respondent points out that the website available via the disputed domain name does not generate revenue at the Complainant’s expense, does not deceive visitors into believing that there is an association with the trademark owner, and does not exceed the Respondent’s rights of free expression or free speech. According to the Respondent, the website associated with the disputed domain name evidences that the disputed domain name is used for the purpose of genuine criticism and commentary, in a non-misleading and fair manner. \r\n\r\n2.\tThe Respondent asserts that the (offering for) sale of the disputed domain name without targeting the trademark holder is a legitimate interest\r\n\r\nThe Respondent admits that it is in the business of registering and using “.sucks” domain names,  consistent with the purpose of such domain names (i.e., to be used in connection with criticism and feedback websites). The Respondent admits that the webpage associated with the disputed domain name shows a general notice that the disputed domain name is available for purchase. However, The Respondent asserts that it is not improper to offer the disputed domain name for sale.\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent argues that the Complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s MIRAPEX trademark or intended to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or intended to mislead visitors. The Respondent claims that it registered the disputed domain name because it incorporates a trademark and the pejorative “.sucks” gTLD with the purpose to support a valid criticism and commentary website. According to the Respondent, it is clearly communicated to visitors of the website that the website contains comments and feedback concerning the referenced product. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that it is not a “cybersquatter”. According to the Respondent, the fact that the disputed domain name is listed for sale is not evidence of bad faith. Where a respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name, a general offer for sale is not evidence of bad faith. The Respondent points out that it is permissible to sell descriptive domain names. The combination of a trademark and the “.sucks” gTLD creates a highly descriptive impression and conveys a message to a user that the website associated with the domain has a descriptive (and legitimate) purpose, i.e. to provide negative comment and feedback. \r\n",
    "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 not shown that the Respondent has 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 not shown that the disputed domain name has been registered or 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Bart Van Besien, Nathalie Dreyfus, The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of the EU word trademark “MIRAPEX”, with No. 003364585, filed 23 September 2003, issued 25 January 2006, in Class 5, covering “Medicines for the treatment of central nervous system disorders, other than for use by dentists or dental surgeons”. This trademark is hereafter referred to as the \"MIRAPEX trademark\".  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <mirapex.com> which was first registered on 27 February 1998.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MIRAPEX.SUCKS": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}