{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101452",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-02-23 08:51:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "METACAM.XYZ"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Whois Privacy Corp."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein. It is a worldwide well known pharmaceutical enterprise and has about 140 affiliated companies worldwide with roughly 46,000 employees. The Complainant’s two main business areas are Human Pharmaceuticals and Animal Health. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark ”METACAM” is used to indicate a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug (meloxicam), which is often used to treat arthritis in Pets.\r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the trademark “METACAM” was registered in the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH), for which the last renewal was made on April 16, 2014.\r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant’s further non-contested allegations, the term METACAM is only known in relation with the Complainant and its METACAM’s product and has no dictionary meaning in any language. \r\n\r\n2. The Disputed Domain Name <metacam.xyz> was created on June 2, 2016 and is currently not used in connection with an active website.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided between the same parties and relating to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has been informed that neither the written notice of the Complaint nor the advice of delivery thereof was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court. The Czech Arbitration Court is therefore unaware whether the written notice was received by the Respondent or not. As far as the e-mail notice is concerned, Czech Arbitration Court received a notice that the e-mails sent to <metacam.xyzowner@customers.whoisprivacycorp.com> and <postmaster@METACAM.XYZ> were returned back undelivered as the e-mail addresses had permanent fatal errors. No further e-mail address could be found on the disputed site. The Respondent never accessed the online platform.\r\n\r\nOn this regards, the Panel notes that the Registrant uses a privacy service and that in the Registrar Verification, the Registrar answered that the data were not available (N\/A) to the Czech Arbitration Court’s request to “Confirm or correct the Respondent’s contact information listed above and if not complete, please provide Respondent’s additional contact information as soon as possible, including, for the Respondent’s technical contact, administrative and billing contacts for the above domain name(s)”.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, there is wide recognition among panels that a complainant or provider who has correctly sent a UDRP case-communication to the WhoIs-listed registrant of record for a disputed domain name will in the absence of better information normally have discharged its communication responsibility under the UDRP Rules (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition at point 4.9). This Panel shares said view.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Federica Togo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-03-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademark registrations consisting of the term “METACAM”, in particular international trademark no. 547717 registered on August 1, 1990 for goods in class 5. Moreover, it is the owner of various domain names including the wording “METACAM”, in particular <metacam.com> created on June 25, 2003.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "METACAM.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}