{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101138",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-12-22 11:34:10",
    "domain_names": [
        "entellix.com",
        "lumellix.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "H. Lundbeck A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Wallberg IP Advice",
    "respondent": [
        "Mcbao Media Inc"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "I. Language of the proceedings\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that English be the language of the administrative proceedings, cf. Rules Paragraph 11(a). However, the Registration Agreement is Chinese. The Registrant´s name is - in addition to fact that the Respondent registered a domain name that is identical to the Complainant´s trademarks - written in Latin script and under the .com top level domain. \r\n\r\nII. Complainant\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an international pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development, production, marketing and sale of pharmaceuticals across the world. The company's products are targeted at disorders such as depression and anxiety, psychotic disorders, epilepsy and Huntington's, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 1915 by Hans Lundbeck in Copenhagen, Denmark. Today the Complainant employs approximately 5.600 people worldwide. The Complainant is one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies working with brain disorders. In 2014, the company's revenue was USD 3.4 billion. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant markets a number of different pharmaceuticals for the treatment of brain diseases.  \r\n\r\nThe trademarks ENTELLIX® and LUMELLIX® are registered in Denmark, where the Complainant is established and are applied for\/registered in other jurisdictions around the world. The Danish applications took place on 30 September 2015 and they were published by the Danish Trademark Office (DKPTO) on 2 October 2015. \r\n\r\nIII. Disputed domain names \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain names on 6 October 2015.",
    "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 names.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nComplainant's Contentions:\r\n\r\nThe contested domain names entellix.com and lumellix.com are identical to the trademarks ENTELLIX and LUMELLIX. Also, the Complainant asserts that it is an established and recognized principle under the UDRP that the presence of the .com top level domain designation is irrelevant in the comparison of a domain name to a trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not been granted any license or consent, express or implied, to use the complainant´s trademarks, in a domain name or in any other manner, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent have authorization from the Complainant to register the disputed domain names. Further, to the best knowledge of the Complainant, the Respondent has no legitimate right in the contested domain names. The Respondent did not use the domain names as a trademark, company name, business or trade name prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent otherwise commonly known in reference to the name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied to register its trademarks ENTELLIX and LUMELLIX in Denmark on 30 September 2015. Trademark applications filed at the DKPTO are made public immediately after filing, which in practice means two days after the filing of the trademark. Thus, the two applications were made public on 02 October 2015 and the contested domain names were both registered on 06 October 2015, which is immediately after the filing and publication of the application of the two trademarks. Both trademarks were registered on 10 November 2015 and are thus registered before the filing of this complaint. \r\n\r\nIt is a well-known fact that a number of companies monitor new trademark applications worldwide some of which report their findings their customers or to the public at large as soon as they are made public. The Complainant claims that because of the coined and thus distinctive nature of the Complainant´s trademarks ENTELLIX® and LUMELLIX®, the Respondent must have had positive knowledge as to the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time the Respondent registered the contested domain names. This is the more apparent since the Respondent has registered both trademarks as domain names, which makes it inconceivable that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant´s two trademarks, when registering the two domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not use the domain names actively. Now, instead, a message indicating that the webpage is unavailable will appear when the disputed domain names are entered into a search engine. However, as first stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000 0003, and repeated in many subsequent decisions under the UDRP: “the concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent’s lack of bona fide use of this disputed domain names is likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant since it prevents the Complainant from reflecting its distinctive trademarks in the corresponding .com domain names. Further, given the coined nature of the trademarks it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to use the disputed domain names for any purpose that would not be infringing the Complainant´s rights. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks 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 Domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names have been registered and are 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": [
        "Dominik Eickemeier"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-02-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is the owner of the trademarks \"ENTELLIX\" and \"LUMELLIX\". Both registrations are valid for class 5; the trademarks are registered in Denmark and other jurisdictions. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ENTELLIX.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "LUMELLIX.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}