BACHEM Holding Ag v Name Redacted
WIPO Case No. D2022-4668
•17-01-2023
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
BACHEM Holding AG v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2022-4668
1. The Parties
The Complainant is BACHEM Holding AG, Switzerland, represented by Isenbruck Bösl Hörschler PartG mbB, Germany.
The Respondent is Name Redacted[1].
[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <bachemag.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2022. On December 6, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 9, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 16, 2022.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
page 2
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 20, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 9, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 10, 2023. On January 11,
2023, the Respondent sent informal email communications stating to know nothing about the disputed
domain name and that the registration of the disputed domain name has been made without his knowledge.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2023. The Panel
finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the
Rules, paragraph 7.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent.
The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is BACHEM Holding AG, a Swiss company operating in the pharmaceutical field and owning several trademark registrations for BACHEM, among which the following ones:
| - | Swiss Trademark Registration No. 2P-356141 for BACHEM, registered on October 30, 1987; |
| - | International Trademark Registration No. 517706 for BACHEM, registered on October 30, 1987; |
| - | United States of America Trademark Registration No. 2642379 for BACHEM, registered on October 29, 2002; and |
| - | United States of America Trademark Registration No. 4826587 for BACHEM, registered on October 6, 2015. |
The disputed domain name was registered on April 11, 2022, and it resolves to an inactive website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BACHEM, since it contains the trademark BACHEM with the addition of the letters “ag”, standing for the official abbreviation in German for a commercial legal form of a business entity.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed
page 3
domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark BACHEM is distinctive and internationally known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the
Complainant contends that, the disputed domain name is not in use.
B. Respondent
Except for the email communications on January 11, 2023, the Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the absence of a reply to the Complainant’s contentions have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to actively participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so,
reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance
with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL
INTERNATIONAL PLC v. MARK FREEMAN, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v.
GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; and Confédération Nationale du
Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No.
D2007-0288).
However, the Respondent submitted the following informal email communications on January 11, 2023, the first one in English and the following ones on French, stating to know nothing about the disputed domain name:
| “I received this e‐mail from you. But I don’t really understand what’s going on. Could you please sent me an | explanation, preferably in French. If I understand, there is a complain against my association for de name of | |||
| de website? But I’ve never seen this complain. Sorry if I didn’t made what you were asking me but I really don’t understand what happen.” | ||||
| “Chère madame, Le nom de domaine que vous évoquez : bachemag.com nous est totalement inconnu. soyons identifiés dans ce litige. En vous souhaitant une excellente journée.” | ||||
| ||||
| “Madame, Je ne trouve aucune trace de réservation ni d’achat de ce nom de domaine pour notre institution. ou sortant concernant une éventuelle réservation de nom de domaine. En vous souhaitant une excellente | ||||
| après‐midi.” | ||||
| 6. Discussion and Findings | ||||
| Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: | ||||
|
page 4
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark BACHEM both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BACHEM trademark.
| other terms (whether descriptive, geographical terms, letters, or otherwise) to a domain name does not | Regarding the addition of the letters “ag”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8. |
| It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. | |
| The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). | |
| B. Rights or Legitimate Interests | |
| Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. | |
| The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: | |
| “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or | |
| (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or | |
| (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” | |
| According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is always more complicate than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production on the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. |
page 5
prima facie bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a case that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests he may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the present evidence.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied
affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BACHEM in the pharmaceutical field is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and its trademark and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, which currently resolves to an inactive website, the Panel considers that bad faith may exist even in cases of so-called “passive holding”, as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
page 6
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Finally, the Panel notes the apparent identity theft in this matter, and considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark BACHEM with the mere addition of the letters “ag”, standing for the business structure of an affiliated company of the Complainant, further supports a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <bachemag.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2023
identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this
decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent.
The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated
Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-
12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788..
0
0
0