{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102941", "time_of_filling": "2020-02-25 14:35:27", "domain_names": [ "boehringerinelheimpetrebates.com", "boehringeringelheiumpetrebates.com", "boehringeringellheimpetrebates.com", "boehringeringenheimpetrebates.com", "boehringerningelheimpetrebates.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Anonymize, Inc." ], "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. \r\n\r\nEver since, the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about 140 affiliated companies worldwide, with approximately 50,000 employees. Its three business areas are \"human pharmaceuticals\", \"animal health\" and “biopharmaceuticals”. In 2018, net sales of the Boehringer group of companies amounted to around 17,5 billion Euros.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns multiple domain names including the wording \"BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM\", among which , registered on September 1, 1995, and registered on July 4, 2004.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names have been registered on February 18, 2020 and redirect to a parking page with commercial links both related and unrelated to the Complainant.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM as each include it entirely, merely misspelling said trademark by changing or removing a single letter. Misspelling of trademarks are not sufficient to avoid similarity.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the addition of the terms “pet rebates” to the Complainant’s trademark worsens the likelihood of confusion as they directly refer to the Complainant’s website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the disputed domain names for a number of reasons. \r\n\r\nFirst, the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nSecond, the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by, the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not perform any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Complainant has not granted a license or authorization to the Respondent to make use of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThird, the disputed domain names redirect to a parking page with commercial links; this kind of use cannot amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services, or to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark is distinctive and well known. The Respondent chose to register the disputed domain names to create confusion with the domain name used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products.\r\n\r\nIn light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent 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 therefore contends that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website for commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": "2020-04-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries, such as the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM n°221544, registered since July 2, 1959 and duly renewed, designating several countries and claiming protection for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 29, 30 and 32.", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINELHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERNINGELHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGENHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELLHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIUMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }