{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103736", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-16 09:35:44", "domain_names": [ "metacam.online" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM VETMEDICA GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Gabriella Garlo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe 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. Ever since, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 52,000 employees. The three business areas of BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2020, net sales of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM group amounted to about EUR 19.6 billion.\r\n\r\nThe asserted trademark METACAM is used by the Complainant in connection with a medicine for cats and dogs to reduce post-operative pain and inflammation following surgery. It can also be used for lactating cows and calves.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 8 April 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nAccording to the information on the case file, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English. The Respondent has not filed a Response.", "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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\r\n \r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark METACAM and that the disputed domain name includes it in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that addition of the New gTLD suffix ‘’.ONLINE” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant mentions that its rights have been confirmed by a previous panel in CAC Case No. 101452, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH v. Whois Privacy Corp. .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainants points to the established UDRP caselaw on a prima facie case and argues that the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also states that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and that 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, and that past panels found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts constructive\/prior knowledge of its rights by the Respondent because (i) the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark METACAM which has been registered in the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) since 16 April 2014; and (ii) all the Google results for the term “METACAM” refer to the Complainant’s product. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant finds it reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith as mentioned in previous UDRP cases.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "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": [ "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademark registrations:\r\n- the international trademark registration No. 547717 for “METACAM”, registered since 8 January 1990 for class 5 and designated for numerous countries; and\r\n- the international trademark registration No. 1057583 for “метакам” (transliteration of “METACAM”), registered since 22 October 2010 for class 5 and designated in numerous countries.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant allegedly holds multiple domain names including those with the wording “METACAM”. The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered holder of the domain name registered and used since 25 June 2005.", "decision_domains": { "METACAM.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }