URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Vladimir Kiskov

Claim Number: FA1508001632971

 

DOMAIN NAME

<mobic.webcam>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH of Ingelheim, Germany.

Complainant Representative:  Nameshield of Angers, France.

 

Respondent:  Vladimir Kiskov of Perm, International, Russian Federation.

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  dot Webcam Limited

Registrars:  Gandi SAS

 

EXAMINER

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

 

Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: August 12, 2015

Commencement: August 13, 2015   

Default Date: August 28, 2015

 

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

To obtain an order that a domain name be suspended, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements:

 

1.     The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to

            a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional

            registration, and that it is in current use;

2.     Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain

 name;  and

3.     The same domain name was registered and is being used by   

            Respondent in bad faith.

 

In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid international trademark for the MOBIC mark, Registry No. 563599, registered November 28, 1990, in international class 005 [anti-rheumatic products, anti-inflammatory products and plasters].  Respondent does not dispute any of this.

 

 

Identity or Confusing Similarity

 

There is no dispute that the <mobic.webcam> domain name is substantively identical to Complainant’s MOBIC mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use.  Accordingly, we so find.         

        

Registrant’s Rights or Interests

 

Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent is not related to Complainant and does not carry on any business with Complainant, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <mobic.webcam> domain name, that the website resolving from the domain name has been inactive since the time of its registration, that the domain name prevents Complainant from registering a similar domain name, that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name, that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its rights in the MOBIC mark when it registered the domain name, that Respondent has been named as a respondent in other proceedings for having registered and used domain names that were confusingly similar to the marks of others, and that Respondent has registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.

 

On these undenied facts, we have no difficulty in finding that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the contested domain name. 

   

Registrant’s Bad Faith

 

Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <mobic.webcam> domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of the question whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.  See URS Procedure ¶ 5.7.   Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the discussion above of the absence of any rights to or legitimate interests accruing to the benefit of Respondent from the facts presented in the Complaint filed in this proceeding.   

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

We find from a review of the record that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it does not contain any material falsehoods.

 

DETERMINATION

Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we find that Complainant has proven all three elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence.  We therefore Order that the <mobic.webcam> domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.

 

Terry F. Peppard, Examiner

Dated:  August 28, 2015

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page