{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104219",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-12-08 09:29:28",
    "domain_names": [
        "beohringer-ingelhelm.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Obrain Group"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a German 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, the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 52,000 employees. The three main business areas of the Complainant are: human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2020, the Complainant achieved net sales of around 19.6 billion euros.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boehrginer-ingelheim.com> was registered on December 1, 2021.",
    "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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\ni) The Complainant has rights in the BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM mark (i.e. International Reg. No. 221544 registered on July 2, 1959); and the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark (i.e., International Reg. No. 568844 registered on March 22, 1991) through its registration of the marks with the WIPO. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM.\r\n\r\nii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant; 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; the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM; and the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, and thus the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\niii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark; therefore, by registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM thereby intentionally designing to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark; the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page; the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes; and the Respondent has already been involved in other UDRP case against the Complainant for similar facts.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent did not submit a response.",
    "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": "Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings\r\nThe Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Japanese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Japanese. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that (i) the Respondent is located in the United States in which the language is English, therefore, the Respondent is familiar with English; (ii) the disputed domain name is formed by words in Roman characters (ASCII) and not in Japanese script; and (iii) in order to proceed in Japanese, the Complainant would have had to retain specialized translation services at a cost very likely to be higher than the overall cost of these proceedings, the use of Japanese in this case would therefore impose a burden on the Complainant which must be deemed significant in view of the low cost of these proceedings.\r\n\r\nPursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of the Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM” in several countries, such as the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM Reg. No. 221544, registered on July 2, 1959 and duly renewed; and the international trademark \"BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM\" Reg. No. 568844 registered on March 22, 1991. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BEOHRINGER-INGELHELM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}