{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103868", "time_of_filling": "2021-06-17 09:41:07", "domain_names": [ "boehringers-lngelheim.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Sophie Fraser" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102708, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. stave co ltd (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, . The disputed domain name is such a typosquatting domain and is accordingly confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.”);\r\n\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 (“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- 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\n- WIPO 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\n- WIPO Case No. D2016-1546, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes (“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 domain name constitutes registration and use bad faith.”);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has registered a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to its trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and its domain names associated. \r\n\r\nEssentially, the Respondent has appropriated the trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM with the addition of the letter “S”, the substitution of the letter “I” by the letter “L” and the use of the gTLD “.COM”, concluding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant believes this is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: BOEHRINGERS-LNGELHEIM instead of BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. \r\n\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM has to be authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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 trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name is not used or did not make any use of since its registration, and confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name since its registration. \r\n\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM is distinctive and well-known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Complainant argues it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM to intentionally create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, which is evidence of bad faith.\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 name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant provided that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.", "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 name.", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 50,000 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 million.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner, among others, of multiple trademark registrations including the terms “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries:\r\n\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM n°221544, registered since July 2, 1959; and\r\n\r\n- the international trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM n°568844 registered since March 22, 1991.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM”, such as registered since September 1, 1995.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 10, 2021, and resolves to an inactive page.\r\n\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERS-LNGELHEIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }