The Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. of Ingelheim, Germany, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / J Gates, My Domain Estates of Dublin, Ohio, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 31, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 8, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 9, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 29, 2015. The Respondent submitted informal email communications to the Center on September 2, 9 and 11, 2015.
The Center notified the parties of the Commencement of the Panel appointment process on September 30, 2015.
The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a German family-owned group of companies operating in the pharmaceutical industry and has about 140 affiliated companies worldwide with roughly 46,000 employees. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for BOEHRINGER and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM in several countries, including Community trade mark registrations and U.S. trade mark registrations.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on June 27, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
(a) The Complainant is the registered owner of the United States, European Community and International BOEHRINGER and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trade marks. The Complainant also registered multiple domain names incorporating its BOEHRINGER and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM marks.
(b) The Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trade mark in its entirety, with the addition of the word “sucks”. The addition of the pejorative word “sucks” does nothing to mitigate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. It is generally accepted that a domain name consisting of a trade mark and a negative term would be considered to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.
(c) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to apply for the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant nor have they carried on any business together. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page in French, and there is no indication that the Respondent has made any preparation to use the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of legitimate criticism.
(d) The Respondent was previously the subject of another UDRP case issued by the Complainant, where the Respondent was found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / ESQUIRE 5, J Gates,WIPO Case No. D2015-0978).
(e) The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in full knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trade mark. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page, which enables the Respondent to earn pay-per-click revenue by taking advantage of the notoriety of the Complainant’s mark.
(f) The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to tarnish the Complainant’s trade mark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a Response. Whilst the Respondent submitted informal email communications to the Center on September 2, 9 and 11, 2015, the Panel notes the Respondent did not deny any of the contentions in the Complaint, and simply demanded that the Complainant return the domain name , which was transferred to the Complainant following a panel decision issued in favour of the Complainant against the Respondent under a separate UDRP action (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / ESQUIRE 5, J Gates, supra).
The Respondent has had no apparent regard for the UDRP. In the email dated September 9, 2015, the Respondent states: “I’m sure if the review is fair the claim will be dismissed immediately. We own plenty of generic corporate ‘sucks’ domains. We also own www. which the above illegally hijacked from me. As we notified Boehringer Ingelheim we demand the domain back or payment…”. In the email dated September 11, 2015, the Respondent states “as per our previous sent email we demand our domain ‘www.’ returned or the amount requested, you have several more days to reply”.
The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the BOEHRINGER and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trade marks, based on its European, International and USA registrations.
The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark in its entirety, the only difference being the word “sucks”. It is well established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark, and the only difference is a generic term that adds no distinctive element, then such term does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark (See Oakley, Inc. v. Joel Wong/BlueH- INC,WIPO Case No. D2010-0100; Diageo Ireland v. Guinnessclaim,WIPO Case No. D2009-0679; and The Coca-Cola Company v. Whois Privacy Service,WIPO Case No. D2010-0088). In particular, the prevailing view amongst UDRP panels is that a domain name which consists of a trade mark and a negative term (e.g., ) would be considered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark for the purposes of establishing the first element of the UDRP (see Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Aware Marketing,WIPO Case No. D2011-2127; and Paragraph 1.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
Lastly, it is also well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain extensions, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-0762).
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark and the addition of the negative word “sucks” does nothing here to distinguish it from the Complainant’s trade mark for purposes of the Policy.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to prove he has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to him of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Respondent has trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that he has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a parking page. There is therefore no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has used, or has made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name for a noncommercial or fair use (e.g., as a genuine noncommercial criticism site) or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that it is likely the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM mark at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name (i.e., June 27, 2015), for the following reasons:
(a) the Complainant is well-known worlwide and has been in operation for many years;
(b) the Respondent had previously registered the domain name , which incorporates the Complainant’s registered SPIRIVA mark, and which became the subject of a separate UDRP claim (see Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / ESQUIRE 5, J Gates, supra, where a decision was issued on August 17, 2015 requiring the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant) (“Spiriva Claim”); and
(c) the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name very soon after the Spiriva Claim had commenced and after the Respondent had sent emails to the Center regarding the Spiriva Claim (i.e., on June 15, 17 and 23, 2015).
The fact that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name so soon after the Spiriva Claim had been initiated against him, further implies that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to purposefully target the Complainant and to use it as a bargaining tool in relation to the domain name. This is supported by the emails sent by the Respondent on September 2, 9 and 11, 2015 in relation to these proceedings, where the Respondent repeatedly demands that the Complainant transfer the domain name back to him, and threatens that “if this situation is allowed to escalate [he] will respond by escalating it 10x more.”
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name is currently being used by the Respondent to resolve to a parking page, which it is reasonable to assume allows the Respondent to earn pay-per-click revenue. Using a domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain, in an effort to trade on the Complainant’s goodwill, is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy (Adobe Systems Incorporated v Domain OZ,WIPO Case No. D2000-0057). The Respondent has also not made any submissions or provided any evidence to show any contemplated good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy