The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade rights for the term “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM ”. In order to satisfy the first element of the Policy it is usually sufficient for a complainant to show that the relevant mark is “recognizable with the disputed domain name”; as to which see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Domain Name can only be sensibly read as the term "Boehringer Ingelheim", with the term "Ingelheim" misspelled with an additional letter "g", combined with the words "pet" and "rebates" and the "com" top level domain. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The distinctive nature of the Complainant's mark, and the fact that the only sensible interpretation of the Domain Name is one that contains a misspelling of that mark, makes it clear that the Domain Name was registered with the knowledge of the Complainant and that mark. Further, the Panel accepts that the use made of the Domain Name suggests that the Domain Name was used to take advantage of the similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark to draw internet users to a parking page that displayed sponsored links for commercial gain. There is no right or legitimate interest in using another's mark in a domain name for such a purpose (see paragraph 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0) and such registration and use is in bad faith, falling within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel also accepts the Complainant's contention that the Respondent has previously registered domain names seeking to take unfair advantage of the Complainant 's marks contrary to the provisions of the Policy. Indeed, it appears that the Complainant is merely one of a number of entities that have been targeted in this fashion.
In the circumstances, the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
|