The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel notes that other Panels have noted the well-known nature of the trade mark 'BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM', to the extent that a Respondent can reasonably be assumed to have had it in mind when registering a disputed domain name containing the same or similar text (e.g. CAC Case No. 102275 Boeringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH v Karen Liles; WIPO Case No. D2016-0021, Boeringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH v Kate Middleton).
The Panel further notes that, at the time of the commencement of these proceedings, the disputed domain name pointed to a 'parking' page with what appear to be commercial links to various other providers of goods or services (including, it appears, the Complainant). While the CAC was subsequently attempting to contact the Respondent, it appears as if these links were no longer displayed (though the Panel's own attempt discloses that the disputed domain name redirects to a similar page of links at <ww1.boehringeringlheimpetrebates.com>). The Panel can safely conclude that, at least for a period of time, the Respondent 'intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website', by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
The Respondent may have temporarily removed or made less obvious the links, but their presence for a period of time immediately after registration, the lack of any other information regarding the use of the disputed domain name, and indeed the Respondent's lack of participation in these proceedings, mean that the Panel remains certain that the requirements for a finding of bad faith under the Policy have been met. (Even in the absence of the evidence of commercial use, a Panel could have gone on to consider the possibility of 'passive holding', given the strength of the Complainant's case).
Finally, the Panel notes the Complainant's submission that the Respondent has been the Respondent in various other disputes to which the UDRP applied, such as CAC Case No. 102765, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH vs Fundacion Comercio Electronico (concerning the same Complainant) and CAC Case No. 102696, Amundi Asset Management vs Fundacion Comercio Electronico (concerning an unrelated Complainant). The Panel notes, of its own motion, that other Panels have, within the last week, issued two further decisions concerning the activities of the Fundacion Comercio Electronico (and indeed the same Complainant) - CAC Case No. 102854 and CAC Case No. 102872. The Respondent has also been engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names containing the marks of others including the Complainant’s mark. As such, the Panel could also have found that the activities of the Respondent meet the requirements set out in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy (registering a domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct).
|