A. The Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark
The Complainant has rights in the mark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM by virtue of its registered trademarks.
The Complainant clearly has trademark rights and the Complainant’s trademark rights have also been confirmed by previous panels, e.g. CAC Case No. 101420 (<boehringeringelheiminc.com>); CAC Case No. 101436 (<boehringer-ingl1heim.com>) and BOEHRINGER Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2016-1546.
The Panel finds the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
As stated in BOEHRINGER Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2016-1546: “it is well-established that “[a] domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name” (quoting paragraph 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
The Disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM marks in its entirety. The only difference between the Disputed domain name and the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark is the additional use of the letter “i” (“ingeliheim” instead of “ingelheim”), which is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and does not change the overall impression of the trademark.
The gTLD suffix “.com” is to be generally disregarded under the confusing similarity test.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the first requirement of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The general rule is the following:
(i) a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests; and
(ii) once such prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the respondent who has to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name under paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy.
If the respondent fails to do so, the second element of the Policy is satisfied, see Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios, WIPO Case No. D2001-0121; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110 and CAC Case No. 101284 (<salomontw.com>).
The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any business relationships with the Complainant.
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain name is not linked with an active website.
The Panel agrees that this could not constitute legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed domain name or otherwise create rights or legitimate interests under the circumstances of the case.
Previous UDRP case law supports the view of the Complainant (see e.g. Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267 and FA 918556, National Arbitration Forum, Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble) and the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient prima facie evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name.
The Respondent failed to respond.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has shown a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent and, therefore, satisfied the second requirement of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists non-exhaustive circumstances indicating registration and use in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the evidence submitted by the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, because the registration of the Disputed domain name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s domain name constitutes registration and use bad faith (see, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568 (where the panel found that typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in bad faith)” – see BOEHRINGER Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2016-1546).
The Panel finds that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and business name, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks and with the clear intention of taking advantage of the Complainant’s marks and reputation.
The Panel holds that the third requirement of the Policy has been satisfied.
|