{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105869", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-12 09:25:52", "domain_names": [ "boehringer-ingelhiems.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "opio bros" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a prominent German pharmaceutical company that owns the International trademark for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, No.221544, registered on July 21, 1959. The Respondent registered the domain name <boehringer-ingelheim.com> on October 6, 2023 and in the course of doing so, made several spelling alterations to the Complainant's trademark and caused the domain name to resolve to an inactive website. The Complainant is concerned at this infringement of its trademark and has brought this proceeding to have the domain name transferred from the Respondent to itself.<\/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": "

<\/p>\n

A COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Complainant is a prominent German pharmaceutical company that has been in business since 1885.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. It owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the International trademark for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, No.221544, registered on July 21, 1959, (“the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark”).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n

        The Complainant also owns many domain names that reflect the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark, such as <boehringer-ingelheim.com>, registered on September 1, 1995, which it uses in its business.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The Respondent registered the domain name <boehringer-ingelheim.com> (“the disputed domain name”) on October 6, 2023 and caused it to resolve to an inactive website.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

           <\/p>\n

            \n
          1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark, as it merely inverts the letters “i” and “e” of the trademark and adds the letter “s”. Thus, in registering the domain name, the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting which, as has been demonstrated in many prior UDRP decisions, shows confusing similarity.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

             <\/p>\n

              \n
            1. The Respondent has also added the gTLD “.com” which cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

               <\/p>\n

                \n
              1. The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In that regard, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie<\/em> case and, if it is successful, the onus of proof reverts to the Respondent to disprove that case.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. The prima facie case in this proceeding is established by the evidence that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, it is not related to the Complainant in any way, and it does not carry out any activity or have any business with the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name or to make any use of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                   <\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Moreover, the Respondent’s act of typosquatting in registering the domain name cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                     <\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. The domain name points to an inactive webpage which also cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. \n

                        The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant provides following arguments:<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        • the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark;<\/li>\n
                        • it must be inferred that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the mark and that the Respondent intentionally designed it to be confusingly similar to the mark;<\/li>\n
                        • the disputed domain name points to an inactive webpage;<\/li>\n
                        • given the fame of the Complainant and its mark, it is impossible to conceive of a legitimate and lawful use to which the disputed domain name could be put; and<\/li>\n
                        • MX servers are configured, suggesting that the domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes which would itself be a use in bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                           <\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Finally, it is submitted that as the Complainant has made out all of the elements that it must prove, it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely the transfer of the domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            <\/p>\n

                            B RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

                            The Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding.<\/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": [ "Neil Brown" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

                            The Complainant is the registered owner of the International trademark for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, No. 221544, registered on July 21, 1959, (“the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark”).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "boehringer-ingelhiems.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }