WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd. Case No. D2018-2530 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH of Monheim am Rhein, Germany, represented by BPM Legal, Germany.

The Respondent is Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd. of Chitre, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2018. On November 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 7, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name.

The Center verified that 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 29, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 30, 2018.

The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 2018. 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 a German multi-national pharmaceutical and life sciences company that has existed since the early 1800s. With over 300 affiliates and more than 115,000 employees worldwide, the Complainant is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The Complainant operates in all five continents, manufacturing and selling numerous products, including human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, consumer healthcare products, and agricultural chemicals. This proceeding involves Xarelto, one of the Complainant’s most well-known pharmaceutical brands. Xarelto is a prescription coagulant, or blood-thinner medication, which had billions of dollars of sales in 2016.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark XARELTO in numerous countries worldwide, including Latin America, where the Respondent is located (hereinafter referred to as the “XARELTO Mark”).

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 24, 2018. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page used in connection with third party pay-per-click advertising links.

The Respondent is the owner of numerous other domain names that incorporate registered trademarks of well-known brands. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that:

- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights,

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name,

- The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and

- The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)):

(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domai