The Complainant is a German pharmaceutical company that dates back to 1885 and is a world leader in the human and veterinary health sectors, driven by a strong R&D profile. Information submitted by the Complainant states that it has over 50,000 employees, is active in more than 130 markets and had net sales in 2024 approaching €27 billion.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adduced screenshot evidence to show that the disputed domain name resolves to a page under construction, entitled \"Coming Soon!\", and to demonstrate that e-mail (MX) traffic to the disputed domain name is redirected to another provider's server than the one hosting the name.<\/span><\/p>\n For its part, the Panel during its routine scrutiny of the Case File ascertained that a credible (mobile) telephone number was given at registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent when providing contact details. However, the first and last names given raise suspicion, the address is incomplete and appears to be defective and the user name in the e-mail address given appears to be constructed with reference to a popular video game rather than containing any identifying information. The Panel also reviewed the MX redirection evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in exercise of its powers under the Rules, determined upon brief investigation online that the server address to which e-mails are redirected (a FDQN) is one commonly reported to be associated with malware and phishing.<\/span><\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n 1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <boehringer-inegelheim.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks for BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and to its domain name <boehringer-ingelheim.com>. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM by addition of the letter “E” in the disputed domain name's stem is characteristic of typosquatting, whose purpose is to create confusion among internet users. The Complainant also contends that the addition of the gTLD extension <.com> does not change the overall impression that gives rise to confusing similarity.<\/p>\n 2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name<\/p>\n The Respondent contends that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name <boehringer-inegelheim.com>, given its confusing similarity to the Complainant's protected brand. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant and has been granted no licence or authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM, including as regards registration of the disputed domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM: that is, it follows the illegitimate practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of internet users’ typographical errors. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a page under construction and thus the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, which confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name and so, again, demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n 3. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, given, again, the disputed domain name's confusing similarity to the Complainant's trademarks. The misspelling of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM was hence intentional in designing the disputed domain name in this way, a circumstance which previous UDRP Panels have found to be evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a page under construction, thus showing that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. It is also not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. Finally, MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks 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 that 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 the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n The Panel notes that its résumé of the Parties' contentions includes for the Complainant only its arguments pertinent to reaching a decision in this proceeding; it omits in particular references made to past ADR Panels' Decisions. The Panel declines to consider a contention based on decisions of some previous Panels regarding prima facie proof as to the second part of the UDRP cumulative test (i.e. relating to the Complainant's responsibility to show a Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of a disputed domain name) since this contention is irrelevant to the circumstances of this proceeding.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Kevin Madders"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-24 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has adduced evidence showing it is the owner of the following trademarks for the brand and corporate name BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM:<\/p>\n 1. International trademark No. 221544 for a figurative mark, registered on 2 July 1959 in Nice Classification List classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 29, 30 and 32;<\/p>\n 2. International trademark No. 568844 for a figurative mark, registered on 22 March 1991 in Nice Classification List classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 30 and 31.<\/p>\n Both international trademarks’ basic registration was in Germany. The countries designated for their applicability varied between the two, but the trademarks assure extensive international protection. The Complainant claims that it has more trademarks, but did not provide evidence of them.<\/p>\n The Complainant submitted WHOIS evidence showing that it has been the registrant of the domain name <boehringer-ingelheim.com> since 1 September 1995. The Complainant claims that it is the registrant of further domain names, but again, without providing evidence.<\/p>\n The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <boehringer-inegelheim.com> on 12 April 2026 according to the Registrar Verification obtained by the CAC Case Administrator.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"boehringer-inegelheim.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}