The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s widely known trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM in its entirety, together with a hyphen, the geographic indication for Germany, “de”, and the inconsequential gTLD “.com”, none of which additions detract from the distinctiveness of that mark. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM mark is distinctive and widely known. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that she does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited, WIPO Case No. D2004-0753. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any Response, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent must have been aware, when she registered the disputed domain name, of the Complainant and its widely known trademark.
As in Mobile Communication Service Inc v. Webreg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304 : “The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for a PPC parking page constitutes bad faith use because the Respondent is attracting Internet users to its website by causing confusion as to whether its website is, or is associated with, the Complainant or its services”. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), such use is evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
|