The Complainant, Merck KGaA is a leading science and technology company operating in life science, healthcare, and electronics. As part of its activities, it has developed SYNTHIA, an Artificial Intelligence powered retrosynthesis software development used primarily in drug discovery and chemical development. This is a very important tool used in the science and research world, particularly for developing new chemical and medical products and consequently it is highly recognised for making a positive and significant contribution to medical science. <\/p>\n
As well as the SYNTHIA trademark, the Complainant owns the domain name <synthiaonline.com> which it uses in its business to promote its products under its SYNTHIA trademark and brand.<\/p>\n
It has come to the notice of the Complainant that on November 30, 2024, without any permission and several years after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in SYNTHIA, the Respondent registered the domain name <synthialab.com> (\"the Disputed Domain Name\") which includes the SYNTHIA trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the word “lab” which signifies the word “laboratory” used by the Complainant with respect to its SYNTHIA trademark, and also the Top Level Domain “.com.” Moreover, the Complainant has produced a version of its SYNTHIA software called SYNTHIA®LAB, especially marketed for academic and non-profit research.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has caused the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that uses the SYNHIA trademark, offers a “focus” on the same services as those provided by the Complainant, “efforts” in that regard, a “Synthia Lab”, “(p)rojects on our roadmap” and an “open-source synthetic data engine” within the range of goods and services provided by the Complainant under its trademark and apparently to be in competition with it.<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name and the website to which it resolves pose a very concerning threat to the Complainant’s business and its SYNTHIA trademark and brand. In that regard, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name and the use made of it by the Respondent constitute an infringement of the SYNTHIA trademark, give rise to a likelihood of confusion in the minds of internet users between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name and pose the threat of potentially improper use that might be made of the Disputed Domain Name in the future if the Respondent retains it. <\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SYNTHIA trademark, that registering the Disputed Domain Name and having it resolve to the aforesaid website gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has therefore brought this proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy to obtain a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to itself and thus the cessation of the improper use which it submits the Respondent has made of it.<\/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": "
The Complainant made the following contentions.<\/p>\n
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns the trademark for SYNTHIA set out above and which was registered several years before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on November 30, 2024.<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name <synthialab.com> incorporates the Complainant’s SYNTHIA trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letters “lab” which signify the word “laboratory” used by the Complainant with respect to its SYNTHIA trademark, and also the Top Level Domain “.com.” The trademark is clearly recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of the letters “lab”, signifying laboratory, enhances the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark because internet users would read the Disputed Domain Name as invoking the Complainant, its trademark and brand, its genuine products offered under the trademark and their use in a laboratory.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SYNTHIA trademark.<\/p>\n
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
As is universally accepted, the Complainant is first required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and, if such a prima facie case is made out, the onus of proof is then transferred to the Respondent to rebut any such prima facie case that has been established.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that, for the following reasons, it can make out its prima facie case.<\/p>\n
First, the Complainant has not given any permission or authority to the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name and there is no affiliation, business or other relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter which it sent to the Respondent on September 24, 2025.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, the Respondent has no trademark rights that could entitle it to register the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
Fifthly, the Disputed Domain Name is not an Arabic, common or generic word.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Complainant submits that it has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits on the following grounds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
First, the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent several years after the Complainant had acquired its SYNTHIA trademark.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the Respondent has caused the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers a process capable of being used for developing an open-source synthetic data engine to generate allegedly robust, high-quality datasets, being the same or similar services to those legitimately offered by the Complainant under its trademark.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, the Complainant’s SYNTHIA trademark incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name is highly recognisable and is thus very valuable, as well as being widely recognisable for its contribution to medical science.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, it is highly unlikely that the Disputed Domain Name could have been registered without the Respondent having had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark and its SYNTHIA product.<\/p>\n
Fifthly, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.<\/p>\n
Sixthly, the Respondent has disrupted the Complainant’s business within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
Seventhly, by registering and using the Disputed Domain Name as aforesaid, the Respondent has engendered confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
Eighthly, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name for a webpage that gives such a significant indication of its intentions with respect to the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name that it must be concluded that it has both registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant thus submits that it has established all of the elements it is required to prove under the Policy and that it is therefore entitled to the relief that it seeks.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Neil Brown" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The evidence has established that the Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of registered trademarks including:<\/p>\n
(collectively \"the SYNTHIA trademark\").<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "synthialab.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }