{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103601", "time_of_filling": "2021-02-25 09:28:22", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringelheimeuinerebates.com", "boehringeringellheimperebates.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "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, founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein. Ever since the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 51,000 employees. The three business areas of the Complainant are human pharmaceuticals, animal health, and biopharmaceuticals. In 2019, net sales of the Complainant group amounted to about EUR 19 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording \"BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM\", such as registered and used since August 14, 2019.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 18, 2021, and the disputed domain name was registered on February 19, 2021 (collectively \"disputed domain names\"). They resolve to a parking page with commercial links.", "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": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the addition of the letter \"L\" to the trademark \"BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM\" and the deletion of the hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademarks. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademarks, and domain names associated.\r\n\r\nBesides, the addition of the terms “PE REBATES” or “EUINE REBATES” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”. It does not change the designations' overall impression as being connected to the Complainant's trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant and its trademark.\r\n\r\nOn the contrary, the addition of the terms “PE REBATES” or “EUINE REBATES” worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s websites at the domain names and .\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM\" does not change the designations' overall impression as being connected to the trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names\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 is not commonly known as a 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 regarding 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 trademarks “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names per the foregoing.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe 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 51,000 employees worldwide and 19 billion euros in net sales.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” is distinctive and well-known. Past Panels have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent choose to register the disputed domain names to create confusion with the domain names and , used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet and equine health products.\r\n\r\nConsequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks 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 resolve to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant's trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has already been involved in numerous cases against the Complainant. Please see for instance CAC Case No. 103124, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico , CAC Case No. 103498, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico .\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and uses 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 names are 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 names (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 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 the Policy were met, and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-24 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademarks including the terms “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries, such as:\r\n\r\n- International trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” n°221544, registered since July 2, 1959; and,\r\n\r\n- International trademark “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” n°568844 registered since March 22, 1991.", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMEUINEREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELLHEIMPEREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }