{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102922", "time_of_filling": "2020-02-20 12:26:03", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringeiheimpetrebates.com", "boehringeringeleimpetrebates.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a pharmaceutical group of companies founded in 1885, with operations worldwide and with about 50 000 employees. Its main businesses are human pharmaceuticals and animal health. Net sales in 2018 amounted to about EUR 17.5 billion. \r\n\r\nBesides the International trademarks No. 221544 dated 2 July, 1959 and No. 568844 dated 22 March, 1991, the Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain names incorporating that trademarks, including in particular (since 1 September 1995) and ( since July 4, 2004).\r\n\r\nNo information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain names and on 10 February, 2020 under a privacy statement. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names currently redirect to a parking pages with commercial links.\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\nCOMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain names and and the Complainant's registered trademarks BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM are confusingly similar. \r\n\r\nParticularly, the Complainant contends that its trademarks are fully contained within the disputed domain names and points out that the elements in which the signs vary, i.e. “PET REBATES”, are generics and descriptive with regard to the service offered by the Complainant at the webpage https:\/\/www.boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com\/ \r\n\r\nMoreover, according to the Complainant, the substitution and deletion of one letter in the disputed domain names is less relevant and does alter the overall similar impression the domain names and the registered trademarks leave.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also points out that the applicable Top-Level suffix “-com” does not per se prevent the likelihood of confusion.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names, nor that the Respondent is making any businesses with the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized in other way to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor to apply for or use any domain names incorporating such trademarks.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states due to its worldwide presence and considering that the Complainant’s sign “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM” is a well-known mark, the Respondents could not be unaware of the Complainant rights over the name BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM at the time of the disputed domain names registration.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent choose to register the disputed domain names to create a confusion with the Complainant’s registered domain name , used by the Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with commercial links both related and unrelated to the Complainant and its activities. Consequently, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks 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 names (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 names have been registered 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": [ "JUDr. Hana Císlerová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-20 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names and and the Complainant's registered trademarks BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM are confusingly similar.\r\n\r\nParticularly, the Complainant contends that its trademarks are fully contained within the disputed domain names and points out that the elements in which the signs vary, i.e. “PET REBATES”, are generics and descriptive with regard to the service offered by the Complainant at the webpage www.boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com", "decision_domains": { "BOEHRINGERINGEIHEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BOEHRINGERINGELEIMPETREBATES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }