{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103998",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-09-01 09:17:35",
    "domain_names": [
        "boehrinnger.cloud"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "seedreams"
    ],
    "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, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein. The Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise with 140 affiliated companies worldwide and about 46,000 employees. Its two business areas are human pharmaceuticals and animal health. In 2013, the net sales of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM group amounted to about EUR 14.1 billion. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <boehringer.com> registered on 12 January 2000.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 21 August 2021 and is inactive.\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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOEHRINGER trademark and to its domain names. The addition of letter “n” in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the trademark. The obvious misspelling of the BOEHRINGER trademark is characteristic of a typo-squatting practice intended to create a confusing similarity with the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER trademark, and does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusing similar to it. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name, because the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER trademark. According to the Complainant, the fact that the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of the BOEHRINGER trademark is further evidence that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER trademark and given the distinctiveness of this trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of the trademark. The Complainant further states in this regard that a Google search on the term “BOEHRINNGER” provides several results, all of them being linked with the Complainant. According to the Complainant, since the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the BOEHRINGER trademark, it was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with this trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further 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 it by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and did not submit any arguments or evidence in its defence.  ",
    "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": [
        "Assen Alexiev"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-10-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the International trademark BOEHRINGER with registration No. 799761, registered on 2 December 2002 for goods in International Classes 1, 3, 5, 10, 16, 30, 31, 35, 41, 42 and 44 (the “BOEHRINGER trademark”). ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEHRINNGER.CLOUD": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}