Westmore · UDRP DecisionMobic.company
The Panel ordered transfer of <mobic.company>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MOBIC trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that directing the domain to pornography established bad-faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not file a response.
The timeline behind mobic.company
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind mobic.company — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward UDRP fact pattern in which exact incorporation of an established mark, coupled with use for pornography and an unrebutted lack of authorization, supported findings on all three elements. The pornography-related use was independently central to both the legitimate-interests and bad-faith analyses.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. v. Denis Stravinsky Case No. D2019-1282 1. The Parties The Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG., Germany, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Denis Stravinsky, the Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mobic.company> (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2019. On June 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 7, 2019 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 amended Complaint on June 7, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2019. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2019. 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the owner of the mark MOBIC registered as an International trade mark since 1990 for pharmaceuticals. It owns the domain name <mobic.info>. MOBIC was registered with the Trademark Clearing House in 2014. The Domain Name was registered in 2019 and it has been used for pornography. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the mark MOBIC registered as an International trade mark since 1990 for pharmaceuticals. It owns the domain name <mobic.info>. MOBIC was registered with the Trademark Clearing House in 2014. The Domain Name was registered in 2019 and it consists of the Complainant’s trade mark and the gTLD “.company” which does not prevent the Domain Name being identical to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name resolves to a website containing pornography, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith per se and will cause confusion on the Internet as to the source of the website to which the Domain Name resolves or its contents. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name in this Complaint consists of the Complainant’s MOBIC mark (registered as an International mark for pharmaceutical products and services since 1990) and the gTLD “.company”. The gTLD “.company” does not prevent the Domain Name being identical to the Complainant’s MOBIC mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the mark MOBIC. The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial use. The use of a Domain Name containing a third party trade mark to resolve to pornography cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why it should be able to use the Complainant’s trade mark in this way. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Use of a domain name containing a complainant’s trade mark in relation to a webpage hosting adult material such as the pornography in this case is evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. There is, therefore, no need to consider any additional grounds of bad faith. As such, the Panel finds that as the Domain Name has been pointed to pornography the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb 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 Domain Name <mobic.company> be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: July 15, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around mobic.company
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.