I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the “BOEHRINGER" trademark since at least December 2002.
The Panel must now analyze if there is a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. As per evidence in the record, the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark verbatim, namely, "BOEHRINGER".
In addition, the disputed domain name, <boehringerequinerebates.com>, strings together two generic words, namely “equine” and “rebates”. These terms’ addition is not substantive enough to dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks. This addition may enhance the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademarks, as it aims to replicate a domain name commonly used by the Complainant through its course of business, namely <boehringeringelheimequinerebates.com>. However, further analysis will be discussed under the following elements below.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
II. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record and acknowledging that the Respondent failed to produce any allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel must turn to the uncontested facts. These indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; c) the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the trademarks; d) the Respondent is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant and has no business dealings with the Complainant.
In failing to respond to the Complainant's contentions, the Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case, as described in paragraph 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.
In addition to this, the Respondent's use of the trademark plus the use of two generic terms, namely "equine" and "rebates", seems to indicate that the Respondent not only was aware of the Complainant but deliberately targeted the Complainant to benefit from the association to the Complainant and confuse Internet users as to the source of sponsorship. A practice like this can never be considered a bona fide offering under the Policy.
The actions of the Respondent reinforce this. After the notification of the proceedings, the Respondent chose not to provide an explanation or defense. Instead, the Respondent redirected the website to random links.
Based on the above and the probability balance, it is difficult to conceive the Respondent having rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. This reasoning is closely linked to the potential of having fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name; however, this analysis is better suited under the third element.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As per the record and evidence at hand, the Panel finds that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent seems to evoke a connection to the Complainant's trademark by including the trademark in its entirety, with the only addition of two generic words, namely “equine” and “rebates”. These two words evoke one of the Complainant’s domain names used in its ordinary course of business, namely, <boehringeringelheimequinerebates.com>.
In addition to this, it is worth noting that the website resolving from the disputed domain name was modified after the initiation of the proceedings instead of responding. Without having any other explanation from the Respondent, in conjunction with the other facts and evidence, in this case, it strengthens the allegations and the points raised by the Complainant on the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
All the preceding analysis leaves the Panel no other option than to conclude that that the most likely intention of the Respondent was to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/ disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or disputed domain name, as per illustrated under paragraph 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.
In light of the case's circumstances, based on the available records, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
IV. Decision
For the preceding reasons and concurrence with the provisions specified under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
|