The Panel is satisfied that the second level of the disputed domain name contains a typographical variant of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM registered trademark in which the hyphen has been deleted and the first letter “r” substituted by the letter “l”. The Complainant’s said mark is still fully recognizable within the disputed domain name despite such deletion and substitution. The generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, is typically disregarded for the purposes of the comparison exercise. In these circumstances the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based upon its various assertions. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not related in any way to the Complainant, has no business or other activity with the Complainant and has not been granted any license or other authorization to use the Complainant’s mark or to apply for the disputed domain name. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s contention that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, which can on its own be evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests on the part of a respondent.
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this case and accordingly has provided no submissions or evidence which would serve to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Respondent having failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, and there being no facts or circumstances on the present record indicating that the Respondent may otherwise have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests therein.
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is a close typographical variant of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM registered trademark. A previous panel under the Policy has determined that such trademark is both distinctive and well-established (see, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. Kg. v. Teck Keong Fong, WIPO Case No. D2020-1867). Equally, the Complainant itself is well-known worldwide and has been in operation for many years (see Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / J Gates, My Domain Estates, WIPO Case No. D2015-1542). Finally, it should be noted that the Respondent has previously targeted the Complainant’s rights with a typographical variant domain name in connection with which a finding of registration and use in bad faith was made (see Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. king kong, CAC Case No. 103212).
In all of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and of its rights when it registered the disputed domain name. It is likewise reasonable to infer that the Respondent intended to target the Complainant’s rights in bad faith for its own commercial benefit, given that the Respondent has selected an obvious typographical variant of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and has partially configured this to display pay-per-click links. The fact that these links are not currently live does not in itself contradict the apparent bad faith motivation on the Respondent’s part. There is evidence both in the present case and in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. king kong, supra, that the Respondent has taken steps to conceal its identity. This is also indicative of registration and use in bad faith in the circumstances of the present case as it suggests that the Respondent is attempting to avoid or frustrate remedial action being brought against it, possibly with a view to extending the time during which it may receive Internet traffic to the website associated with the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention 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.
In failing to file any Response, the Respondent has not availed itself of the opportunity to address the Complainant’s contentions or to advance any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name which might have indicated that its actions were in good faith. On the basis of the present record, and in the absence of such a Response, the Panel cannot conceive of any reasonable explanation which might have been tendered by the Respondent regarding its registration or use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
|