{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104196",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-11-30 09:18:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "boeh-ringerlngelheim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Janet Fitz"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885. The Complainant is a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise with about 52,000 employees and 19,6 billion euros net sales in 2020. The Complainant´s main businesses are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. \r\nThe Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of the wording “Boehringer Ingelheim” registered in relation to several classes of goods and services, connected with the pharmaceutical industry.\r\nThe Complainant presents its products via several websites and registered domain names consisting of its trademark wording, such as, <boehringer-ingelheim.com>, as shown in the excerpt from Whois database.\r\nAccording to the Registrar, the Respondent is Janet Fitz. The Respondent´s provided address as being at Norwood, Massachusetts, in the United States of America. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <boeh-ringerlngelheim.com> on November 23, 2021. The disputed domain name was redirecting to a parking page with commercial link. This was evidenced by the submitted copy of the parking website.",
    "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\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nA. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks.\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks and its domain names associated.\r\nIn the view of the Complainant, there is characteristic typosquatting practice in the obvious misspelling of the Complainant´s trademark, i.e., the substitution of the letter “I” by the letter “L” and the move of the hyphen. According to the Complainant, there is an intention to create confusing similarity between the Complainant´s trademark and the disputed domain name.\r\nIn this respect, the Complainant points out CAC case No. 102708 in which previous Panel has found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.\r\nThe Complainant added that past Panels commonly stated that the gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity (i.e. WIPO Case No. D2006-0451).\r\n\r\nB. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, past panels have held that the Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name (i.e. Forum Case No. FA 1781783).\r\nThe Complainant states that it is not related in any way with the Respondent and the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant. Moreover, neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant´s trademark. The Complainant contends that 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 (i.e. Forum Case No. 1765498, Forum Case No. 1597465). Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. As the Complainant added, past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use (i.e. Forum Case No. FA 970871, WIPO Case No. D2007-1695).\r\n\r\nC. The Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\nThe Complainant argues that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. WIPO Case No. D2019-0208, CAC Case No. 102274).\r\nThe Complainant alleges that by registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the Complainant´s trademark it was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and that previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith (i.e. WIPO Case No. D2016-1546).\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith (i.e. WIPO Case No. D2018-0497).\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNo administratively Complaint Response has been filed.",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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. Radim Charvát, Ph.D., LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, including:\r\n-\t“Boehringer-Ingelheim.” word international trademark registration No. 221544 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 29, 30, 32 with designation for AT, BX, CH, DE, EG, ES, FR, HU, IT, LI, MA, MC, ME, PT, RS, SM (under the Madrid Protocol by virtue of Art. 9sexies) and registration date on July 2nd, 1959; and\r\n-\t“Boehringer Ingelheim” word international trademark registration No. 568844 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 30, 31 with designation for AG, BH, BN, BQ, CW, IS, NO, SX, SY, TM, TR, UZ (under the Madrid Protocol) AL, AM, AT, AZ, BA, BG, BT, BX, BY, CH, CN, CU, CZ, DZ, EG, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, KE, KG, KP, KZ, LI, LR, MA, MC, MD, ME, MK, MN, MZ, PT, RO, RS, RU, SD, SI, SK, SL, SM, TJ, UA, VN (under the Madrid Protocol by virtue of Art. 9sexies) and registration date on March 22nd, 1991. \r\nThe Complainant proved its ownership of trademark registrations in question by submitted extracts from the trademark register.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOEH-RINGERLNGELHEIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}