{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102765",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-11-04 10:09:02",
    "domain_names": [
        "boheringer-ingelheim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fundacion Comercio Electronico"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with origins dating back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein. Ever since, the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today approximately 50,000 employees. The three main activity areas of the Complainant are \"human pharmaceuticals\", \"animal health\" and \"biopharmaceuticals\". In 2018, the Complainant's net sales amounted to around 17,5 billion Euros.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM\" such as the international registration No. 221544 dating back to 1959, mentioned above. Moreover, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording <boehringer ingelheim>, among which <boehringer-ingelheim.com>, registered on September 1, 1995, and <boehringeringelheim.com> registered on July 4, 2004.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boheringer-ingelheim.com> was registered on October 29, 2019 and redirects to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark. Indeed, the reversal of the letters \"e\" and \"h\" and the use of the gTLD \"com\", are not sufficient to escape the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name is a misspelled word of the Complainant's registered trademark. Therefore, the disputed domain name is a typosquatting version of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover the gTLD \".com\" is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Furthermore the Respondent has no relation whatsoever with the Complainant and does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. The Complainant never licensed its trademark to the Respondent, nor authorized the Respondent to make use of its trademark or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant's trademark demonstrates the Respondent's attempt to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further points out that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links, both related and unrelated to the Complainant and its activities. This kind of use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services, or to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nWith respect to the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant contends that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent intentionally registered a misspelled version of the Complainant's trademark in order to take advantage of the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark, which is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nRegarding use in bad faith, the Complainant recalls that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page containing commercial links, both related and unrelated to the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nAs a further support of the Respondent's bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has already been involved in many other UDRP cases involving third parties' trademarks.\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": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-12-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the word trademark BOHERINGER-INGELHEIM, international registration No. 221544 of July 2, 1959, covering goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 29, 30 and 32 and designating several European and non-European countries.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOHERINGER-INGELHEIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}