{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103709", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-31 08:38:01", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringelheimperperrebates.com", "boehringeringelleimpetrbates.com", "boehringeringiheimpetrebates.com", "boehringerungeelheimpetrebates.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 DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\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. \r\n\r\nEver since, the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 51,000 employees. The three business areas of BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2019, net sales of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM group amounted to about EUR 19 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the marks indicated above.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns multiple domain names including the words “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM”, such as registered and used since August 14, 2019. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered between March 25, 2021 and March 26, 2021 and resolve to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the substitution, the addition or the deletion of letters in the trademark are not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the addition of different variations of the terms “PET REBATES” is not sufficient to escape the confusion. It does not change the overall impression of the designations 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\nOn the contrary, these additions worsen the likelihood of confusion, as the directly refer to the Complainant’s own website and business.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database by the disputed domain names. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed 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 in respect of 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, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with commercial links and past UDRP panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial 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. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that it is one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 51,000 employees worldwide and 19 billion euros in net sales and its BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark is distinctive and well-known. \r\n\r\nPast 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 a confusion with the Complainant’s domain name , used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products. \r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and their 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\nThe disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent was already involved in numerous similar typosquatting cases before the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) introduced by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.", "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 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": [ "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM (word) No. 221544, registered since July 2, 1959 and renewed; and \r\n\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM (word) No. 568844, registered since March 22, 1991 and renewed. ", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINGELHEIMPERPERREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELLEIMPETRBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGIHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERUNGEELHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }