{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102108",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-07-26 09:29:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehriinger-ingelheim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Laca"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 22 July 2018 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is not genuinely used and merely redirects to a third party reseller parking page.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains “BOEHRIINGER” and “INGELHEIM” word elements, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- The addition of the extra letter “I” into the word BOEHRINGER (i.e. forming BOEHRIINGER) is not sufficient to escape confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name represents a clear case of so called “typosquatting” which means that the disputed domain name is based on an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: BOEHRIINGER-INGELHEIM instead of a correct form BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- Furthermore, the disputed domain name links to a reseller parking page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent has not made any genuine use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard. \r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well-known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search. \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) resolves to a mere parking site with no genuine content. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant.\r\n\t\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described non-use of the disputed domain name and Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting, are sufficient to establish bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name (i) incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and at the same time (ii) abusing typosquatting, constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information about the Complainant and its business;\r\n- Excerpts from trademark database regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n- Excerpts from WHOIS database regarding Complainant's domain names;\r\n- Excerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n- Screenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing non genuine use of the same);\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "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).",
    "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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-11-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing word elements \"BOEHRINGER\" and \"INGELHEIM\":\r\n\r\n(i) BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration date 2 July 1959, trademark no. 221544, registered for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 29, 29, 30 and 32.\r\n\r\nBesides other trademarks consisting of the \"BOEHRINGER\" or \"INGELHEIM\" denominations (collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “BOEHRINGER“ and „INGELHEIM”.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRIINGER-INGELHEIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}