{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101589",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-07-03 10:13:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehringer-ingelhelm.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Shia Yang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a German family owned company with its roots dating back to 1885. The Complainant has since become a global research driven pharmaceutical organisation which today has around 140 affiliated companies worldwide, with roughly 46,000 employees, and in 2013 had net sales of around Euros 14.1 billion. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks including the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark. In addition, it owns many domain names featuring the words BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM including boehringer-ingelheim.com (registered  1 September 1995) and boehringeringelheim.com (registered 4 July 2004), which are used to point to the Complainant's main website.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by “Shia Yang” (the 'Respondent') on 22 June 2017 who at first used a privacy shield service offered by his registrar. The disputed domain name has since been used to resolve to a web page featuring third party sponsored links.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name <BOEHRINGER-INGELHELM.COM>.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark.\r\n\r\nThe only difference is the use of the letter 'L' instead of the letter 'I' at the end of the word INGELHEIM. The hyphen and the \".com\" aspect of the disputed domain name can be disregarded. This is therefore a clear case of 'typosquatting'. The Complainant refers to the following cases in support of the contention that slight spelling variations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nWIPO Case No. D2016-1546, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes \r\nCAC Case no. 101200 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & CO.KG v. Ruthann Halay\r\n\r\nPast panels have held that the Complainant's BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trade mark is well known.\r\nWIPO Case No. D2016-0021, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as:\r\n- No licence or authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant's BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark. The Complainant has no business connection with the Respondent.\r\n- The website attached to the disputed domain name points to pay-per-click links to third party websites, and therefore the Respondent intends to exploit and profit from the Complainant's BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark. \r\n- The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks.\r\n- Further given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trade marks, the Respondent must have had the Complainant's mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as:\r\n- The registration of the disputed domain name containing a misspelling of the Complainant's mark indicates the Respondent intended to cause confusion. It is reasonable to infer, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's mark, that the Respondent had the Complainant's BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name with the clear intention of taking advantage.\r\n-The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to point to a website featuring sponsored third party links. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark.\r\n-The Respondent was originally hiding behind his Registrar's privacy shield service to conceal his identity.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, being represented by Anne Morin of Nameshield, filed its complaint in relation to the disputed domain name with the CAC on 3 July 2017.\r\n\r\nThe CAC then formally commenced proceedings on 4 July 2017 and notified the Respondent accordingly.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a response within the time frame required in this complaint, or at all, and a Notification of Respondent’s Default was therefore issued by the CAC on 2 August 2017.\r\n\r\nHaving received a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed Steve Palmer, of Palmer Biggs Intellectual Property Solicitors, as the Panel in these UDRP proceedings on 31 July 2017.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Steve Palmer"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-08-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG (the 'Complainant') is the owner of a number of registered trade marks for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM or which include BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, including EUTM number 2493195 in various classes dated 7 December 2001, Canadian trade mark registration number TMA695516 dated 24 August 2006, and international registration number 568844 in various classes and designating various territories ('the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark').",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRINGER-INGELHELM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}