{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105442", "time_of_filling": "2023-05-15 11:57:08", "domain_names": [ "boehringer-lngelhiem.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Paul Lowe" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that it is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885.<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges it has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise, has over 53,000 employees and achieved net sales of 24.1 billion euros in 2022.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on May 8, 2023 and resolves to an inactive page, while MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its domain names and is an example of typosquatting.<\/p>\n

The <.com> gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name, is not related in any way with the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of its trademark and “typosquatting” itself can be evidence of lack rights and legitimate interests.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and the Complainant asserts that since the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration this confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain name and demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 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. The Complainant cites previous UDRP decisions related to the same mark of the Complainant.<\/li>\n
  2. Referring to previous decisions of UDRP panels the Complainant contends that by registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the trademark “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”, the Respondent intentionally designed the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.<\/li>\n
  3. The Complainant relies on the passive holding doctrine and the “Telstra” decision (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows”) and alleges that passive holding in the present case indicates bad faith of the Respondent since it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.<\/li>\n
  4. The Complainant alleges that while the disputed domain name appears to be unused, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

    The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/span><\/p>\n

    NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

    COMPLAINANT: RESPONDENT:<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

    In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n