The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The disputed domain names differ from the mark in which the Complainant has rights in a number of respects (disregarding, in accordance with UDRP practice, the generic TLD .com).
First, there are differences between the Complainant's relevant mark and the disputed domain names. In respect of the disputed domain name <boehringerelheimpetrebates.com>, the difference is between 'INGELHEIM' (in the mark) and 'ELHEIM' in the domain name. This represents the omission of 'ING'. In response of the disputed domain name <boehringeringingelheimpetrebates.com>, the difference is between 'INGELHEIM' (in the mark' and 'INGINGELHEIM' in the domain name. This represents, conversely, the addition of 'ING'. In both situations, the result is that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to the mark, especially as the overall impression on the user may be of close similarity at first glance.
Second, the Panel notes that the string 'PETREBATES' is included in both of the disputed domain names, but not in any of the Complainant's marks. The Panel is therefore required to consider whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. The most likely interpretation of this string - which has no dictionary meaning of its own - is as the English-language term 'pet rebates'. As the Complainant is active in manufacturing and distributing animal health products, and indeed operates a website at the domain name <BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMPETREBATES.COM>, prior to the registration of each of the disputed domain names, through which it offers rebates (retrospective discounts) to customers who have bought animal (pet) health products, it is not difficult to find that the additional text is descriptive of activities associated with the Complainant including those carried out under its trade marks.
The Panel is strengthened in this conclusion by its review of the thirteen recent decisions (one of which was by this same Panelist) of variously constituted Panels (some pertaining to multiple domain names) at this Provider, all within the last six weeks, which have concerned the Complainant and a successful argument concerning the use of 'rebates' or 'pet rebates': see cases 102854, 102872, 102871, 102875, 102862, 102924, 102937, 102931, 102929, 102922, 102940, 102939, 102938 (listed in chronological order of publication); seven of these decisions also involved the present Respondent. The Complainant has rightly highlighted a number of these decisions in its Complaint.
|