According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein.
The disputed domain name <boehringeringelhemipetrebates.com> was registered on 13 July 2020.
According to the information provided by Complainant the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.
The trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. This is a clear case of typosquatting, as the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s trademark, as the term “heim” in the trademark is misspelled as “hemi”. Complainant also submits that the addition of the terms “PET REBATES” worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to Complainant’s website "www.boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com".
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not related in any way with the business of Complainant. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s trademark. According to Complainant the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links which does not result in rights or legitimate interest.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. Complainant’s trademarks are distinctive and well-known. Past Panels have confirmed the notoriety of Complainant’s trademarks. Complainant contends that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith. Complainant refers to two similar decisions in cases of Complainant against the same Respondent:
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico, CAC Case No. 102872 (“The evidence of use for pay per click links is registration and use in bad faith being a deliberate attempt to divert Internet users for commercial gain under Policy 4 (b)(iv) and disrupting the Complainant’s business under Policy 4 (b)(iii).”);
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico, CAC Case No. 102854 (“The Panel has reasons to presume that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”).
|