It is necessary for the Complainant, if it is to succeed in this administrative proceeding, to prove each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <BOEHRINGERLNGELHEIM.COM> is confusingly similar to the company name and the trademark of the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant contends the deletion of the hyphen and substitution of the letter “I” by the letter “L” in the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and the use of the gTLD “.COM” are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Further it argues that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant.
Moreover, the Complainant contends and provides evidence that the disputed domain name is not in use but misleading users by typosquatting. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See:
- Forum Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line / The Line (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name is typosquatting and indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy § 4(a)(ii).”).
The Complainant further rightfully contends that the Respondent has not developed a legitimate use in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent was seeking to use the disputed domain name only to divert consumers and that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In lack of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <BOEHRINGERLNGELHEIM.COM>. Please see for instance: 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.”).
The Complainant also asserted and proved that the Respondent tried to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks including Complainants company name. The Complainant rightfully contended that <BOEHRINGERLNGELHEIM.COM> is confusingly similar to the prior trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM of the Complainant. The Complainant also referred to the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademark.
This makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's prior trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant rightfully contended that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name <BOEHRINGERLNGELHEIM.COM> intentionally to attract visitors by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with that intention, namely in bad faith. Had the Respondent e.g. wanted to present a bona fide criticism site then it would have been well advised to have included some negative modifier in its domain name and to have restricted itself to objective and reasoned criticism on its website. Reference is made also to: CAC case no. 101036, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG vs. SKYRXSHOP - dulcolax.xyz, WIPO Case no. D2014-0306 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Klinik Sari Padma, BAKTI HUSADA and CAC Case no. 101870, ArcelorMittal SA vs. foundationfe - ARCELURMITTAL.COM.
Furthermore, the Respondent is using a hidden identity. But this argument is not to be discussed further because bad faith is evident, whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith and that the Complaint succeeds under the third element of the Policy.
|