{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106832",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-09-02 10:09:28",
    "domain_names": [
        "jointheranksboehringer-ingelheim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "akosaa laisiaao"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Ever since, the Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has around 53,500 employees. It is divided into two business areas: Human Pharma and Animal Health. In 2023, the Complainant achieved net sales of 25.6 billion euros.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording &ldquo;BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM&rdquo;, such as &lt;boehringer-ingelheim.com&gt; registered since 1995.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on August 28, 2024 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Besides, MX servers are configured.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is unaware of any pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><strong>COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark &ldquo;BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM&rdquo; and its domain names associated as the trademark is entirely contained.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term &ldquo;JOIN THE RANKS&rdquo; is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.<\/p>\n<p>It is well-established that &ldquo;a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD &ldquo;.COM&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent 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.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he 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<p>Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.<\/p>\n<p>Besides, all the results of a search of the term &ldquo;JOIN THE RANKS BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM&rdquo; refers to the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>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<p>Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n<p>On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "<p>To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "<p>The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy were met, and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Rodolfo Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademarks, including the terms &ldquo;BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM&rdquo; in several countries, such as:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>- International trademark &ldquo;BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM&rdquo; n&deg;221544, registered since July 2, 1959; and,<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>- International trademark &ldquo;BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM&rdquo; n&deg;568844 registered since March 22, 1991;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>- International trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM n&deg;1160936 registered since March 25, 2013.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "jointheranksboehringer-ingelheim.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}