{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106725", "time_of_filling": "2024-07-18 09:42:48", "domain_names": [ "spiriva1day.top" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Billi Villi" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies founded in 1885 by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein. It has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today approximately 53,500 employees worldwide. The Complainant achieved net sales of EUR 25.6bn in 2023.<\/p>\n

The Complainant commercialises capsules of tiotropium bromide under the trade mark SPIRIVA, which is an anticholinergic bronchodilator used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.<\/p>\n

In addition to the non-exhaustive list of trade marks mentioned in the above section 'Identification of rights', the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of numerous domain names which bear the sign 'spiriva', most notably <spiriva.com> (registered in 1999).<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. <\/span>Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <spiriva1day.top> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A.1 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark SPIRIVA. The additional terms '1' and 'day' in the disputed domain name string are insufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's trade mark SPIRIVA. In addition, the Top-Level Domain ('TLD') <.top> does not change the overall impression of affiliation with the Complainant's trade mark. <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant's behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to an information page regarding SPIRIVA inhalers with links to an online store selling competing goods, and such use is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.1 Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the trade mark SPIRIVA was registered many years before the registration of the disputed domain name; that the term 'spiriva' has no meaning, except in relation to the Complainant; and that a search for the terms 'spiriva 1 day' would have revealed results mostly related to the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent's website contains information about SPIRIVA inhalers, and the Respondent is in the business of sale of pharmaceuticals.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.2 Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to deceive Internet users seeking the Complainant's product by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, thereby generating revenue from the sales of unrelated or competing pharmaceuticals. The Respondent's conduct would fall within the remit of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.   <\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. <\/strong>Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

For the purpose of this UDRP administrative proceeding, the Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks:<\/p>\n

•  <\/span>International trade mark registration no. 692353, registered on 1 April 1998, for the word mark SPIRIVA, in class 5 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

•  <\/span>EU trade mark registration no. 000789529, registered on 16 June 1999, for the word mark SPIRIVA, in class 5 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant's trade mark’ or 'the Complainant's trade mark SPIRIVA').<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 10 May 2024. At the time of writing of this decision, it resolves to an active website, the particulars of which are discussed in the subsequent sections of this decision (for present purposes, 'the Respondent's website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "spiriva1day.top": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }