Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-102708

The panel is not aware of any related proceedings.

The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting in the wording BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM in several countries, among them the active International registration 221544- Boehringer-Ingelheim in numerous classes and extended to numerous countries.

The Complainant is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to the 19th century.

The panel is aware of the fact that the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today numerous affiliated companies world-wide with roughly 50,000 employees. In 2017 alone, net sales of the Boehringer Ingelheim group of companies amounted to about EUR 18 billion.

The disputed domain name has been registered on October 2, 2019. The website under the disputed domain name initially was not active and now shows links to commercial activities not connected to the Complainant.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. It is the common view among UDRP panelists that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name, see Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No.D2006-1043, <edmundss.com>. The disputed domain name is such a typosquatting domain and is accordingly confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor has the Complainant granted any permission or consent to the Respondent to use its trademarks or designations confusingly similar to its trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Boehrinqer Ingelheim” or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

3. The panel follows the assessment of the Panel in the WIPO Case D2016-0021 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton that “Boehringer Ingelheim” is a well-known mark. Accordingly, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make use of a designation which is highly similar to its marks. This Panel does not see any conceivable legitimate use that could be made by the Respondent of this particular domain name without the Complainant’s authorization.

The circumstances of this case, in particular the typosquatting furthermore indicate that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its potential website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location. The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to have been registered and used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.