{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103741", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-19 09:39:00", "domain_names": [ "boehringerngelhempetrebates.com", "boehringerringelheinpetrebates.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (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\ni) The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark. The misspellings in the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM®, i.e. the deletion of the letter “I” twice or the addition of the letter “R” and the substitution of letter “M” by the letter “N” and the addition of the terms “PET REBATES” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM®. It does not change the overall impression of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated. On the contrary, this addition worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s website https:\/\/www.boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com\/. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression as to being connected to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM®. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.;\r\n- CAC Case No. 103574, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico.\r\n\r\nii) The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, because of domain parking while the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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. Neither 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. Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links. The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain names. Therefore, it is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.;\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group ;\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend and WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe.\r\n\r\niii) The Complainant states that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith while it is one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 52,000 employees worldwide and 19.6 billion euros in net sales and its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM® is distinctive and well-known which leads to the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2019-0208, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Marius Graur;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102274, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG v. Karen Liles.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent choose to register the domain names to create a confusion with the domain name , used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products. Consequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Given that the disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links it is obvious that the Respondent has attempt 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 recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC.", "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\nThe Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules because of the Respondent's failure to submit a response.\r\n\r\nTherefore, in the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complainant.", "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 name 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": [ "JUDr. Vojtěch Trapl" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a 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. Ever since, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 52,000 employees. The three business areas of BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2020, net sales of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM group amounted to about EUR 19.6 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the terms “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries, such as:\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM® n°221544, registered since 2 July 1959; and\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM® n°568844 registered since 22 March1991.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM”, such as registered and used since 14 August 2019.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were registered on 12 April 2021 and resolve to a parking page with commercial links.", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERNGELHEMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERRINGELHEINPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }