{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103212",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-29 13:11:05",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehringerlngelheim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "king kong"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an international pharmaceutical company based in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany. The Complainant is under his company name Boehringer Ingelheim active in the pharmaceutical business for many decades and has as group about 50.000 employees. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a domain holder in the U.S. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name. He linked the disputed domain to a website which is not active. This mislead internet traffic damages the reputation of Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is a case of typosquatting. This practical is considered as a hallmark of Policy § 4(a) (iii) bad faith.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance for instance CAC Case No. 102708, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. stave co ltd <boehrinqer-ingelheim.com> (It is the common view among UDRP panelists that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name, see Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No.D2006-1043, <edmundss.com>. The disputed domain name is such a typosquatting domain and is accordingly confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.”).\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 (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy § 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy § 4(c)(ii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPlease see:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line \/ The Line (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name is typosquatting and indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy § 4(a)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy § 4(a)(ii).”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance: \r\n\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2019-0208, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Marius Graur (“Because of the very distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark [BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM] and its widespread and longstanding use and reputation in the relevant field, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without being aware of the Complainant’s legal rights.”); \r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102274, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG v. Karen Liles (“In the absence of a response from Karen Liles and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark (see, among others, WIPO Case No. D2016-0021, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Kate Middleton), the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM in mind when registering the disputed domain name.”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance WIPO Case No. D2016-1546, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes <boehringer-ingalheim.com> (“the registration of the Domain Name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER‑INGELHEIM trademark and which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s <boehringer-ingelheim.com> domain name constitutes registration and use bad faith.”)\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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": [
        "Dr. jur. Harald von Herget"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant provided evidence that it owns a trademark and domain name containing the letters “Boehringer Ingelheim\". Further \"Boehringer Ingelheim\" is the company name and well-known. The Complainant registered the Boehringer-Ingelheim trademark which is valid and registered well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRINGERLNGELHEIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}