A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Regarding the first step under this element, and as per evidence on record, the Complainant owns international trademark for “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” under n°221544, registered since July 2, 1959. Based on this, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown its trademark rights in “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”.
Turning now to the second step under this element, namely, assessing the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademark, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names reproduces the trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” in its entirety, with the exception of the hyphen between the two words.
In addition to the above-mentioned, the disputed domain names include the following words and/or string of characters “etrebates”, “petrebate” and “prebates”. All of these reference the term “rebate”, which is a term commonly associated with the activity of the Complainant. The additional words in each of the terms refer to “pet”, “et” and “p”.
The additional words and/or string of characters are not enough to dispel a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademark. If anything, the addition of the term “rebate” enhances the perception of confusing similarity.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record, the uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain names; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant and c) the Respondent has not acquired trademark rights on this term.
Further to this, and as asserted by the Complainant, it appears that the Respondent has been parked the disputed domain names with references and links to competitors of the Complainant.
This fact pattern leads the Panel to conclude that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
In conclusion, the uncontested facts on record and on the balance of probability, the Panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and consequently the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark is clearly referenced by the Respondent in the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the use of terms commonly associated with the activity of the Complainant are evidence that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant and intended to benefit financially from the likelihood of confusion. This is evidenced through the parking of the disputed domain names promoting competitors of the Complainant, which indicate a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
In light of the circumstances of the case, based on the available records and on balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain names were registered and is used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the foregoing reasons and in concurrence with the provisions specified under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.
|