{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103124", "time_of_filling": "2020-06-25 10:58:31", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringelheimpetrreebates.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (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 (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG). 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 12 June 2020 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 parking page with various commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \r\n", "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 Complainant’s trademarks are distinctive and well-known trademarks. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark consisting of the term \"BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM\" in various UDRP cases\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 confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks; \r\n\r\n- The only difference between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names are (i) the space between “BOEHRINGER” and “INGELHEIM” (which for technical reasons cannot be represented in an internet domain name) and (ii) a term “PERTRREEBATES”, which is a misspelled version of the descriptive term “pet rebates\";\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 combination of the Complainant’s trademark \" BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM\" and the mispelled term \"PERTRREEBATES\".\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-\tThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n-\tThe 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-\tFurthermore, the disputed domain links to a parking page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent has not made any genuine use of 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-\tBesides, the Complainant contends that the Respondent choose to register the disputed domain name to create a confusion with Complainant's domain name used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products;\r\n \r\n-\tThe 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-\tSeniority 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-\tThe disputed domain (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 or a third party;\r\n\t\r\n-\tIt 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 the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy;\r\n\r\n-\tThe 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\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from trademark database regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tExcerpts from WHOIS database regarding Complainant's domain names;\r\n-\tExcerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing non genuine use of the same);\r\n- \tScreenshots of the website used by the Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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": "2020-08-05 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)\tBOEHRINGER-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, and\r\n\r\n(ii)\tBOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM (stylised letters), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration date 22 March 1991, trademark no. 568844, 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.\r\n(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 terms “BOEHRINGER“ and „INGELHEIM”, for example domain name used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMPETRREEBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }