{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107562", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-12 10:44:29", "domain_names": [ "boehringeringelhiem.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO.KG" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Tony Kim (K-WAY EXPRESS)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant states that it 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. 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that it achieved net sales of 25.6 billion euros in 2023.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that it owns a large portfolio of trademarks with the wording “BOEHRINGER” in several countries, including the trademark registration referred to above.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on May 7, 2025. It resolves to a parking page with PPC links with \"MX\" servers configured.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its domain names. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, i.e. the inversion of the letters “i” and “e” are characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and does not prevent a likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n

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.
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

The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant's trademark. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and it demonstrates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant refers to past UDRP decisions where panels have found that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

Based on the above, the Complainant claims that the second element of the UDRP has been satisfied.<\/p>\n

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

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