{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105265", "time_of_filling": "2023-03-08 10:35:50", "domain_names": [ "mobic.world" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "UDOFA GODSWILL (Tracebig Global Limited)" ], "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, Germany. Ever since the Complainant has become one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies.<\/span>

The Complainant owns several domain names which include the Trademark including the domain name <mobic.info> registered since July 31, 2001.<\/span>

The disputed domain name <mobic.world> was registered on February 19, 2023 and is not used in connection with an active website.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent replied via email to the Centre twice. The first email was within the deadline for response (deadline: April 3, 2023), on March 31, 2023, whereas the second email was sent on April 4, 2023. In those emails the Respondent does not identify himself, except for stating that he is \"not educated to the extent of understanding all the issues here.<\/em>\" and that he likely seems to argue that he has a startup business that has \"ict training and website service not related to drugs or any medical<\/em>. \"<\/span><\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark.<\/span>

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span>

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its distinctive Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent's non-use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

In the aforementioned two emails, the Respondent is mainly stating that the disputed domain name was available and for sale and that this is why he bought it. He is stating that in case there is any fault in buying the disputed domain name the Registrar should come up for this and that it is not his fault. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that \"If the complainant wants me to leave the domain for them, then let them pay me for making me invest in the domain from THE onset, then I will free the domain<\/em>\". Also, the Respondent is seeing this action as harassment and disturbance, which is not letting him focus on his start-up business. The second email of April 4, 2023 was mainly expressing again the same arguments and complaints, and furthermore stated the opinion that the Complainant should have contacted the Respondent first before initiating the current proceedings and that the Respondent has spent money for buying the disputed domain name and he has \"invested in all branding and marketing<\/em>, (..)\".<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. <\/p>\n

Furthermore, Respondent's deafult in the sense that he did not file a \"formal response\" is not seen by the Panel as a reason to not be able to assess the Respondent's emails. Respondent's second email, which was filed after the deadline for response, shall be freely determined by the Panel with regard to its admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence (according to para. 10 10 of the UDRP Rules).<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

\n
\n
\n
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, inter alia the international trademark No. 563599<\/span> “MOBIC”, registered since November 28, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Trademark\").<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Respondent did not identify any rights or evidence in this regard. <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "mobic.world": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }