{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104729", "time_of_filling": "2022-07-22 09:21:40", "domain_names": [ "asparlascalaspargasepegol.com", "asparlasservier.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Servier IP UK Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "IP TWINS", "respondent": [ "Buy this domain on Dan.com ----" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "On May 25, 2022, the Respondent registered the following two disputed domain names:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is part of the Servier Group: the largest independent French pharmaceutical group and the second largest pharmaceutical group in France. The group is active in 149 countries and employs around 22,000 people throughout the world. 100 million patients are treated daily with Servier medicinal products and generics.\r\n\r\nThe Servier Group engineered the medication Calaspargase pegol, used as a component of a multiagent chemotherapeutic regimen for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in pediatric and young adult patients aged 1 month to 21 years. It is sold under the brand ASPARLAS.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s arbitrary and fanciful trademark ASPARLAS. The combination of ASPARLAS with the related terms “servier” and “carlaspargase pegol” in the disputed domain names aggravates the risk of confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because: i) there is no evidence that respondent is commonly known by the terms in the disputed domain names, nor other connection between the Respondent and a legitimate use of the terms; ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent is preparing to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services; iii) the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademarks, nor is there any commercial link between Complainant and Respondent; iv) Complainant had extensively adopted and used the trademark ASPARLAS prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, placing the burden on Respondent to show its rights or interests. \r\n\r\nRegarding registration and use in bad faith: i) Complainant’s Servier Group is widely known such that it is unlikely the Respondent did not know about the Complainant’s rights in the mark ASPARLAS; ii) ASPARLAS is a fanciful, arbitrary term, without any dictionary meaning and thus the disputed domain names’ registrations incorporating this term are not merely coincidental; iii) the fact that the disputed domain names were registered on the same day and using the identical terms as the Complainant’s Pending UK Applications is no coincidence, and demonstrates that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant when registering the disputed domain names; and iv) the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith, as both are offered for sale for a price close to USD 1,000 each and as the disputed names include prior Complainant Trademarks of a non-generic and fanciful term, this is a strong indicator of bad faith. ", "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\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 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 disputed 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": [ "Claire Kowarsky, LL.M" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the term “ASPARLAS”, in particular: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the term “ASPARLAS”, in particular:\r\n\r\n• European Trademark registration ASPARLAS n°016732729, filing date May 17, 2017, international class 5;\r\n\r\n• US Trademark registration ASPARLAS n°5950575, filing date May 16, 2017, international class 5;\r\n\r\n• UK Trademark registration ASPARLAS n°UK00916732729, filing date May 17, 2017, claiming priority date of May 16, 2017, international class 5.\r\n\r\nCollectively, the “Complainant’s Trademarks”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also has two pending UK applications, filed on the same date as the registration of the disputed domain names:\r\n\r\n• UK Trademark application ASPARLAS calaspargase pegol n° UK00003792066, filing date May 25, 2022, international class 5;\r\n\r\n• UK Trademark application ASPARLAS SERVIER n° UK00003792043, filing date May 25, 2022, international class 5.\r\nTogether, the “Complainant’s Pending UK Applications”\r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant owns the domain name , registered since May 16, 2017 and actively used by the Complainant’s group in relation to the ASPARLAS brand.", "decision_domains": { "ASPARLASCALASPARGASEPEGOL.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "ASPARLASSERVIER.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }