Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GMBH v 于青青 (yu qing qing)

WIPO Case No. D2025-0902

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GMBH v. 于青青 (yu qing qing)

Case No. D2025-0902

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GMBH, Germany, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is 于青青 (yu qing qing), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <fencovis.xyz> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina

( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on March 6, 2025.

5, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 6, 2025, 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 (NOT IDENTIFIED) and contact information in the

On March 6, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On the same day, the Complainant conf irmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on March 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on April 1, 2025.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2025. The Panel f inds 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.

4. Factual Background

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Germany with its history dating back to 1885.

The Complainant manufactures, markets and sells a prescription medicine used for the active immunisation of pregnant heifers and cows under the trade mark FENCOVIS (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the Trade Mark in several countries, including International registration No. 1023363, with a registration date of November 13, 2009, designating inter alia China.

The Complainant also makes use of the Trade Mark in respect of several domain names, including

<fencovis.com>, registered since July 9, 2009.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2025.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name is resolved to a website hosted by GoDaddy and of fering the disputed domain name for sale as a “premium” domain for USD 1,450 (the “Website”).

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specif ied otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name comprises Roman characters and not Chinese script; and that the cost of translating the Complaint into Chinese would signif icantly outweigh the costs of this proceeding.

The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

page 4

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been offered for sale for USD 1,450 via the Website.

In addition, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name (being identical to the Trade Mark), which carries a high risk of implied association. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the of fer for sale of the disputed domain name incorporating the prior registered distinctive Trade Mark via the Website amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <fencovis.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2025