The Complainant is a prominent German pharmaceutical company that has been in business since 1885. It owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the aforesaid trademarks and several domain names that it uses in its business including <boehringer-ingelheim.com>, registered on September 1,1995. The Respondent registered the domain name <boehringer-ingeilheim.com> (“the disputed domain name”) on June 13, 2024 and has caused it to resolve to the official website of the Complainant without permission. The Complainant is concerned that the spelling of the domain name is virtually the same as its trademark, that it gives the false impression that it is an official domain name of the Complainant and that it has the potential to be used for improper purposes and to the detriment of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant has instituted this proceeding to have the disputed domain name transferred 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": "
COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark, as it merely adds the letter “i” before the letter “l” of the trademark. 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 with the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has also added the gTLD “.com” which cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In that regard, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case and, if it is successful, the onus of proof reverts to the Respondent to disprove the prima facie case.<\/p>\n
The prima facie case in this proceeding is established by the evidence that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in the name of the Complainant’s subsidiary Boehringer Ingelheim Singapore Pte. Ltd. But as the Respondent’s e-mail address (tommyy2918@fastmail.com) is not affiliated with that company, the Respondent is shown to be using the identity of the Complainant’s subsidiary to increase the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not related to the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor have any business with, the Respondent.<\/p>\n
No license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark or to register the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n That is so because:<\/p>\n the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n it must be inferred that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n the Respondent used the Complainant’s Singapore subsidiary’s identity in registering the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n the misspelling of the trademark in the disputed domain name shows that the disputed domain name was intended by the Respondent to be misleading;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website, showing that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n the intention of the Respondent must have been to take advantage of the Complainant’s good reputation; and<\/p>\n<\/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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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": "2024-07-19 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has established by evidence that it owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the International trademark No. 221544 for BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, registered on July 2, 1959, and the International trademark No. 568844 for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, registered on March 22, 1991 (collectively “the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademark”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"boehringer-ingeilheim.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n