The Complainant is one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 50,000 employees worldwide and 17.5 million euros in net sales. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, and the nearly identical typosquatted domain name registered by Respondent, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith, with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Please see for instance:
- WIPO Case No. D2019-0208, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Marius Graur (“Because of the very distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark [BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM] and its widespread and longstanding use and reputation in the relevant field, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without being aware of the Complainant’s legal rights.”);
- CAC Case No. 102274, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG v. Karen Liles (“In the absence of a response from Karen Liles and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark (see, among others, WIPO Case No. D2016-0021, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton), the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM in mind when registering the disputed domain name.”).
Therefore, by registering the domain name <boehringers-ingelheim.com> with the misspelling of the trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, the Respondent intentionally aimed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.
Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2016-1546, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes <boehringer-ingalheim.com> (“the registration of the Domain Name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER‑INGELHEIM trademark and which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s <boehringer-ingelheim.com> domain name constitutes registration and use bad faith.”)
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive, and MX servers are configured. The Complainant contends, and the panel agrees, that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Consequently, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and has used it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to source, affiliation or endorsement, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus acted in bad faith. On these bases, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|