a. The disputed domain name consists of the Trademark, with the addition of “-ec” at the end, apparently representing the country code of the Respondent's country of establishment, Ecuador. The generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com" may be disregarded in the assessment of the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Trademark. The Panel finds that the addition of the geographical indicator "-ec" to the Trademark does not take away the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trademark so that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
b. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has not been authorized to use the Trademark in the disputed domain name. The Panel further finds that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name merely resolved to a parking site, and presently resolves to a login page showing the Complainant's combined word and device mark "Boehringer Ingelheim", possibly for the purpose of obtaining Internet users' personal information (phishing). The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
c. The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as the disputed domain name was undisputedly selected by the Respondent as being confusingly similar to the Trademark, which as such was very distinctive when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel is also of the opinion that the disputed domain was used in bad faith as the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Trademark. Although not put forward by the Complainant, this is supported by the disputed domain name's present use which seems like phishing, which, if true, further evidence of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|