URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1602001661659
DOMAIN NAME
<ispradaxathesameasxarelto.xyz>
<pradaxaandxarelto.xyz>
<pradaxaandxareltocomparison.xyz>
<pradaxawarfarinxarelto.xyz>
<xareltoogpradaxa.xyz>
<xareltopradaxaapixaban.xyz>
<xareltopradaxapfizer.xyz>
PARTIES
Complainant: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH of INGELHEIM, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Laurent Becker of Angers, France
|
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, II, PA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC | |
Registrars: Namecheap |
EXAMINER
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: February 19, 2016 | |
Commencement: February 19, 2016 | |
Default Date: March 7, 2016 | |
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Respondents: Complainant states: "The domain names have been registered with the same: Registrar (namecheap.com) Period DNS (NS1.ROCKETIPS.COM, NS2.ROCKETIPS.COM) The domain names point to the same link: http://activehealthnews.com/xarelto-side-effects-lawsuit-information/". Accordingly, and because the registrant of all seven domain names is the same -- that is, "WhoisGuard Protected" -- the Examiner determines that it is appropriate to consider all of the disputed in this single proceeding. |
Findings of Fact: With respect to URS paragraph 1.2.6.1, Complainant states: "The domain names are confusingly similar to the International trademark 'PRADAXA' n°807503, registered on July 9th, 2003. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since April 16th, 2014. The domain names include the trademark 'PRADAXA' in its entirety. The addition of the new gTLD '.XYZ' is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark 'PRADAXA. "The addition of generic wording to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity and that panels have usually found the incorporated trademark to constitute the dominant component of the disputed domain name." With respect to URS paragraph 1.2.6.2, Complainant states: "The Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant doesn’t carry out any activity or business with the Respondent. "Furthermore, the domain names point to the website (http://activehealthnews.com/xarelto-side-effects-lawsuit- information/). This link displays information in relation to the Competitor’s product (Xarelto). In further, the website displays commercial links without any relation with the domain names. "The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names to divert the internet traffic to his website." With respect to URS paragraph 1.2.6.3, Complainant states: "The domain names are confusingly similar to the International trademark 'PRADAXA' n°807503, registered on July 9th, 2003. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since April 16th, 2014. The domain names include the trademark 'PRADAXA' in its entirety. According to the use of the disputed domain names, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the moment of registration of the disputed domain names. "The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain names in order to: "- divert the internet traffic to his website; "- take financial gain by displaying commercial links." |
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that each of the registered domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to any of the domain names.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that that each of the domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith, considering the distinctiveness of the PRADAXA trademark and the fact that each of the domain names is being used in connection with a commercial website that includes information about a competitive product. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Douglas M. Isenberg Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page