PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Complainant, inter alia, argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademarks. Complainant refers, inter alia, to WIPO Case No. D2016-0021, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton where the Panel has found that the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark is distinctive and well known.
The Complainant contends that the change of the last letter of the world INGELHEIM with the letter “N” instead of the letter “M”, and the gTLD “.COM” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the trademarks and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademarks of Complainant.
The modification of the letter “N” instead of "M" in the word " INGELHEIM " is a clear case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that it is not related in any way with the Complainant and that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the trademark.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with a view to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trademarks.
The disputed domain name points to commercial links in relation with the Complainant which is a clear indication of Respondent's attempt to mislead consumers by causing a false association with Complainant, which constitutes bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name has been used by the Respondent for the purposes of intentionally attempting to attract Internet users in order to generate pay-per-click or other advertising revenue, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has intentionally registered the domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line 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 its website or location.
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.
RESPONDENT:
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|