Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-103369

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, inter alia the international trademark No. 221544 “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM”, registered since July 2, 1959 and the international trademark No. 568844 "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM", registered since March 22, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark").

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. Ever since the Complainant has become one of the world’s 20 leading pharmaceutical companies.

The Complainant owns multiple domain names which include the Trademark and provides information on its services online inter alia at <boehringer-ingelheim.com>.

The disputed domain name <boehringer-ingelheim.space> was registered on October 18, 2020 and is used in connection with a placeholder website without substantive content.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:

COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its well-known Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent's non-use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith.


RESPONDENT:

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

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).

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).

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).

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.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


1. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark as it fully incorporates it. It is also well established that the suffix of a domain name, such as ".com", ".club", ".nyc",".space" is a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test.

2. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

3.1 The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the Trademark as the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.

3.2 Additionally, the content of the Respondent’s website supports an inference of bad faith use. The website consists of a single webpage with minimal information, basically projecting only the disputed domain name. The Respondent appears to be using the website as a placeholder to create the illusion of legitimate use. This evidences bad faith (see Covestro Deutschland AG v. Ketsaree Wongwittaya, WIPO Case No. D2019-0430).

Furthermore, the Respondent failed to file a Response and therefore did not provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. In the view of the Panel, the facts of this case do not allow for any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.