1.
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain names consist of a misspelling of the Complainant's trademark followed by the wording "petrebates" and the gTLD ".com". Despite the misspellings, the Complainant's trademark is fully recognizable within the disputed domain names. The replacement of one letter with another, or the deletion of one letter are certainly not sufficient to exclude similarity, also due to the fact that the Complainant's trademark consists in a long wording. Thus, changing one or two letters does not affect the overall appearance of the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant's trademark enjoys reputation and is immediately recognizable even with a misspelling.
As far as the addition of the wording "petrebates" is concerned, this addition does not diminish the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, this wording merely conveys the meaning that the Internet user may find rebates of pet products on the relevant websites. The Complainant has shown that it also operates in the "animal health" field. Therefore, the addition of the wording "petrebates", rather than diminishing the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark enhances it.
As to the gTLD ".com", it is a mere technical requirement and therefore should not be considered in the assessment of confusing similarity.
For all the above-mentioned reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition under the Policy is met.
2.
In assessing the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the Panel must take into account that proving a negative fact for the Complainant is a difficult, if not almost impossible task. For this reason, it is generally accepted in UDRP proceedings that it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.
In the case at issue, the Complainant has stated that it has never licensed its trademark to the Respondent, nor authorised in any other way the Respondent to use its trademark, including to register it (or a confusingly similar term) as part of a domain name. Moreover, the Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has shown that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names led to parking pages containing pay-per-click links related and unrelated to the Complainant and to its activity. The Respondent is probably deriving some income from these links and the use of the disputed domain names in such a way does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names (for similar decisions, see among others, CAC's decision No. 102373, dated April 20, 2019, referring to the domain name <avastsupport.com>; CAC's decision No. 102393, dated April 12, 2019, referring to the domain name <amundi-hk.com>, etc.).
In view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the second condition under the Policy is met.
3.
In relation to the last condition set forth by the Policy, the Panel notes that the Complainant's trademark is certainly one that enjoys strong reputation, especially in the pharmaceutical field. The reputation of the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark has been confirmed in several other prior UDRP decisions such as CAC's decision No. 02274 of January 24, 2019, referring to the domain name <boehrlnger-lngelhelm.com> and CAC's decision No. 102130 of October 2, 2018, referring to the domain name <boehinger-ingelheim.com>. The disputed domain names contain misspellings of the Complainant's trademarks. It is therefore hardly conceivable that the disputed domain names were registered without having in mind the Complainant's trademark. This is further confirmed by the fact that one of the companies belonging to the Complainant's group is the owner of the domain name <boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com> used to offer rebates on pet health products. It is therefore evident that the Respondent has been inspired by this domain name when registering the disputed ones.
As far as use in bad faith is concerned, the disputed domain names lead to parking pages containing sponsored links, from which the Respondent most probably derives some kind of economic advantage. The Respondent is therefore exploiting domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark (and almost identical to the domain name <boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com> belonging to the Complainant), to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own, for commercial gain. Such kind of use amounts to use in bad faith even if the pay-per-click links appearing on the websites are "automatically" generated. Indeed, it is well established that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for any content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (see in this respect, para. 3.5 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0).
For all the aforementioned reasons, the Panel is satisfied that also the third and last condition under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met.
|