{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105908", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-26 09:22:07", "domain_names": [ "boehringar-ingelhaim.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "amamfa boscho" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nowadays It is a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has over 53 000 employees. In 2022, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM achieved net sales of 24.1 billion euros (evidenced by Boehringer Ingelheim Company Profile 2023).<\/p>\n

The Complainant proved ownership of two international trademark registrations including the wording BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, in particular “<\/span>Boehringer-Ingelheim” No. 221544, registered since July 2,1959, and “<\/span>Boehringer Ingelheim” No. 568844 registered since March 22, 1991 the submitted extract from the “WIPO Madrid Monitor”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant owns a domain name associated with the listed trademarks, such as <boehringer-ingelheim.com> registered since September 1, 1995 (proven by extract from Whois database).<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘amamfa boscho’. The Respondent´s provided address as being at Anambra, Nigeria. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <boehringar-ingelhaim.com> on October 19, 2023 (evidenced by extract from Whois database) (hereinafter “disputed domain name”). The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links (evidenced by print-screen of the webpage under the disputed domain name). Besides, MX servers are configured (DNS query).<\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of other pending or decided legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Its trademark based on the wording BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and its domain name associated.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that there is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, i.e. the substitution of the letters “E” by the letters “A”, which can be identified as a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark [see CAC Case No. 102708, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. stave co ltd <boehrinqer-ingelheim.com> (“It is the common view among UDRP panelists that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name, see Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No.D2006-1043, <edmundss.com>. The disputed domain name is such a typosquatting domain and is accordingly confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.”)].<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that past Panels commonly stated that the gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity [see WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”)].<\/p>\n

B. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name [see Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”].<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and it 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.<\/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 by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links (print-screen of the webpage under the disputed domain name).. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

<\/p>\n

C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “Boehringer-Ingelheim”.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Therefore, by registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, the Complainant can state that this practical was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith [WIPO Case No. D2016-1546, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Martin Hughes <boehringer-ingalheim.com> (“the registration of the Domain Name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER‑INGELHEIM trademark and which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s <boehringer-ingelheim.com> domain name constitutes registration and use bad faith.”)].<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links (print-screen of the webpage under the disputed domain name). The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith [WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”)].<\/p>\n

The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose [CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”)].

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n