{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102838",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-30 14:12:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehringerthai.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Thailand"
    ],
    "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 portfolio of trademarks including the International verbal trademark registration “BOEHRINGER”, no. 799761, registered since 02.12.2002.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant is the owner of a numerous portfolio of domain names including the domain name <boehringer.com> registered since 12.01.2000.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boehringerthai.com> has been registered on 17.12.2019 and is currently inactive.\r\n\r\nIndeed, it is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance: \r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101761, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Private Registry Authority (“In the view of the Panel, the Respondent must have been aware of the famous trademarks [BOEHRINGER] of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name.”);\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101199, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG  v. Cameron David Jackson <boehringer.xyz> (“Given the notoriety of the Complainant's trademark [BOEHRINGER], it seems impossible for the Respondent to use the domain name in good faith”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other pending or decided legal proceedings, which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boehringerthai.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademark BOEHRINGER. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant sustains that the addition of the generic term “THAI” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOEHRINGER and that, according to other UDRP panels, “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, 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. The Complainant sustains that this does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for a number of reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Respondent is not a Complainant’s licensee, nor has ever been authorised to make use of the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name is currently inactive and that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and that it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name has been registered, and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s maintains that its BOEHRINGER trademark is well-known trademark and therefore, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. The Complainant sustains that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \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": [
        "Delia-Mihaela Belciu"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant bases its Complaint on the International verbal trademark registration “BOEHRINGER”, no. 799761, registered since 02.12.2002, protected for goods and services in classes 01, 03, 05, 10, 16, 30, 31, 35, 41, 42 and 44, designating several countries for protection. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRINGERTHAI.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}