{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103993",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-08-24 09:09:12",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehringer-ingelhcim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "tateandlyle inc"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a long-established and prominent German company in the pharmaceutical industry. It has extensive activities internationally. It has an extensive range of trademarks for BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM and BEOHRINGER INGELHEIM, in particular the BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark and other trademarks including the words BEOHRINGER INGELHEIM which are very well known and very valuable. It also owns many domain names incorporating those trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the <boehringer-ingelhcim.com> domain name on August 17, 2021. The Complainant is concerned that this misspelling of its trademark tarnishes the BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark and will lead to confusion in the community as to whether it is an official domain name of the Complainant or not.\r\n\r\nIt has therefore brought this proceeding to have the domain name transferred from the Respondent to itself. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "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": "CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT \r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions.\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark. \r\n\r\nThat is because the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the trademark, as it deletes the letter “e” where last appearing and replaces it with the letter “c”. This is characteristic of the practice of typosquatting, which has long been recognized as a ground for a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark. In the present case the confusing similarity was also clearly intended. \r\n\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made out, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and if the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and the WHOIS information shows that it is not so known. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is clearly not related in any way with the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor have any business with, the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, this is clearly a case of typosquatting of the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boehringer-ingelhcim.com> is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark and, given the distinctiveness of the trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the trademark.\r\n\r\nTherefore, by registering the disputed domain name <boehringer-ingelhcim.com> with the misspelling of the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark, it must have been intended to cause this confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nConsequently, it is clear that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and has used it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to source, affiliation or endorsement, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus in bad faith.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\t\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding and is therefore in default.",
    "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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-09-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has established by evidence that the Panel accepts that it is the owner of the BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark, being the international trademark No. 221544 for BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM registered on July 2, 1959 and duly renewed and that it was the owner of that trademark when the disputed domain name was registered (\"the BEOHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also established by evidence that the Panel accepts that it is the owner of many other trademarks that include the words BEOHRINGER INGELHEIM.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRINGER-INGELHCIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}