Paragraph 15 of the Rules states that the Panel shall decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.
In the case of default by a Party, Rule 14 states that if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as appropriate.
In the present case, the Respondent has not submitted any Response and consequently has not contested any of the contentions made by the Complainant.
The Panel proceeds therefore to decide only on the basis of the Complainant’s factual statements and the documentary evidences provided in support of them.
1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names <boehringeringeiheimpetrebates.com> and <boehringeringeleimpetrebates.com> almost fully incorporate the Complainant’s registered trademarks “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”, declared to be well-known mark with high degree of distinctiveness (see Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton, Case No. D2016-0021).
The additional elements “PETREBATES" in the disputed domain names have lower degree of distinctiveness and therefore are not sufficient to differentiate the signs. Moreover, the variation in some letters and the gTLD “.com”, which represents a technical requirement of registration, do not alter the overall very similar impression the disputed domain names and the registered trademarks produce.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s previously registered trademarks are confusingly similar and infers that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
2. According to the Complainant’s contentions and evidences submitted within this proceeding, which were not disputed, the Respondent does not appear to be in any way related to the Complainant's business, does not act as the agent of the Complainant nor currently known and has never been known as “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”, or any combination of this trademark.
Furthermore, the disputed domain names <boehringeringeiheimpetrebates.com> and <boehringeringeleimpetrebates.com> are not associated with any business activity and resolve currently in parking pages with the sole purpose of attracting Internet users and redirecting them to other webpages. Therefore, the Respondent does not appear to have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names but instead appears to use the disputed domain names for his own commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's well-known trademark.
Consequently, and in the absence of a Response, the Panelist finds that the Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, so that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.
3. Given the widespread presence of the Complainant’s trademarks and the way how the Respondent is using the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel finds that the Complainant intended to free ride on the reputation of Complainant’s trademarks in an attempt to exploit, for its commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant.
In other words, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from the Respondent, the Panelist infer that by choosing to register the domain names which are similar to Complainant’s trademarks and by intending to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant, the Respondent’s activity is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|