{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103590", "time_of_filling": "2021-02-19 09:11:38", "domain_names": [ "mobic.site" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Maksim Antonenko" ], "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.\r\n\r\nMOBIC (generic name: meloxicam) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It works by reducing hormones that cause inflammation and pain in the body. It is used to treat pain or inflammation caused by osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the trademarks MOBIC registered in many countries, of which the international trademark MOBIC n°563599 registered on November 28th, 1990.\r\n\r\nThe trademark MOBIC was also registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH) on April 16th, 2014.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names including the wording “MOBIC”, such as registered since July 31th, 2001.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 7th, 2021 and resolves to a page without substantial content. The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant is the owner of the mark MOBIC registered as an International trade mark since 1990 for pharmaceuticals, and registered with the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) since 2014.\r\n\r\n2. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark MOBIC. The disputed domain name includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark MOBIC without any addition of letter or word. The new gTLD “.site” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the trademark MOBIC and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n3. The Complainant mentions as example, WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top-level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "The Respondent did not rebut nor reply to the Complainant’s contentions.", "rights": "The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name in this case consists of the Complainant’s well-known\/famous trade mark MOBIC mark (registered as an International mark for pharmaceutical products and services since 1990) as well as registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH) since 2014, CAC Case No. 101145, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Vernon Pursley.\r\n\r\nThe gTLD “.site” does not prevent the disputed domain name being identical to the Complainant’s MOBIC mark which is the distinctive component of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.\r\n\r\nHence, 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 Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant nor related in any way with the Complainant. To the contrary, the Panel has confirmed that all search results in the internet for the term “mobic” refer to the Complainant’s drug. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name points to a page without any substantial content. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and hence, this demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed any response nor has he presented any basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (as per WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi). \r\n\r\nThe 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 stated that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith due to the following reasons: i) the Respondent registered a domain name which includes a well-known\/famous trade mark, ii) the Respondent had constructive knowledge\/prior knowledge of the Complainant´s rights before registering the disputed domain name, and iii) the non-use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent (resolving to a page without any substantial content). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and mentions that prior WIPO UDRP panels decisions, have held, that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website has been found to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThis Panel finds that, in the present circumstances, the Complainant has proved to have rights in its registered trademark MOBIC, with wide and strong reputation internationally, and that the Respondent’s lack of proper content at the disputed domain shows a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii).\r\n\r\nThe 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": [ "Laura Martin-Gamero Schmidt" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the mark MOBIC registered as an International trade mark since 1990 for pharmaceuticals. It owns the domain name . MOBIC was registered with the Trademark Clearing House in 2014.", "decision_domains": { "MOBIC.SITE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }