{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102862", "time_of_filling": "2020-01-20 10:00:51", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringelheimetrebates.com", "boehringeringelheimpetrebate.com", "boehringeringelheimprebates.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Fundacion Comercio Electronico" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a 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. Ever since, Boehringer has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 50,000 employees. The three business areas of Boehringer are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2018, net sales of the Boehringer group amounted to about EUR 17.5 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM”, such as since 1995.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names have been registered on January 10th, 2020 and redirect to a parking page with commercial links both related and unrelated to the Complainant.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not cognizant of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nA. The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. Indeed, the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM is reproduced in its entirety, except for the dash.\r\n\r\nThe addition of misspelling generic terms “PET REBATES” (“ET Rebates”, “Pet Rebate” and “P Rebates”) are not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.\r\n\r\nOn the contrary, the addition of the terms “PET REBATES” worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s website https:\/\/www.boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com\/.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nB. A Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain names. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain names redirect to a parking page with commercial links\r\n\r\nThus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nC. The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 50,000 employees worldwide and 17,5 million euros in net sales.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM is a distinctive and well-known trademark. Past Panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM.\r\n\r\nConsequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain names redirect to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademark for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.", "rights": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "An initial notification of commencement was sent to the Respondent on January 20, 2020. There were some doubts regarding the notification having reached the Respondent and therefore, a subsequent notification was duly sent to the Respondent on February 17, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP have been met and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable to provide the Decision.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns international trademark for “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” under n°221544, registered since July 2, 1959.", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMPETREBATE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMPREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }