The Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH of Ingelheim, Germany, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is (Boehringer Ingelheim) of Allahabad, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2017. On February 10, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 10, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 February 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 13, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 14, 2017.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2017. 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, a German corporation, is the parent of a worldwide pharmaceutical enterprise which employs some 46,000 persons through some 140 affiliated companies. Its main areas of business are Human Pharmaceuticals and Animal Research. In 2013, its net sales amounted to some EUR 14,1 billion.
The Complainant owns numerous trademarks in many different jurisdictions for the words BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM and BOEHRINGER. These include:
Trademark
Registration no.
Registration date
Territory
BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM
221544
July 2, 1959
International
BOEHRINGER
1158978
December 16, 2002
India
BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM
BIOXCELLENCE
2405492
October 3, 2012
India
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
000084657
June 2, 1998
European Union
The Complainant also owns several domain names which incorporate its trademark. For example, registered on September 1, 1993 and registered on November 10, 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 16, 2017. The Complainant caused a cease-and-desist letter to be sent to the Respondent on February 2, 2017. The Respondent made no reply. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to reflect its trademark in a domain name. The Respondent has no affiliation with or licence from the Complainant of any kind.
The Respondent is identified in the WhoIs contact details as “Boehringer Ingelheim” domiciled in India. The Respondent has never been a representative of the Complainant in India.
The Complainant submitted evidence that the disputed domain name pointed to a registered parking website displaying sponsored links and advertising at the time of filing of the Complaint. Currently, the disputed domain name is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name includes the whole of the Complainant’s mark plus “in” which is the country code for India.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave him no rights to use its trademark. The Respondent has not relied upon any of the situations mentioned in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and none of these apply to him.
The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The very adoption of the Complainant’s name gives the impression that the Respondent is an Indian representative of the Complainant. The Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s reputation and business at the date of registration of the disputed domain name. The registration of the Respondent in the name of the Complainant indicates that the Respondent gave false registration details when the disputed domain name was registered in January 2017. This conduct shows bad faith.
Bad faith must also be inferred from the Respondent’s lack of reply to the Respondent’s cease-and-desist letter.
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website which points to a parking page displaying sponsored links is also evidence of bad faith (see Mobile Communication Services Inc v Webreg RN,WIPO Case No. D2005-1304). The Respondent’s conduct intentionally attracts Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
To be successful, the Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The only difference is the addition of the country code “in” for India. There can be no other inference but that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any sort to reflect its trademarks in a domain name.
This fact and the circumstances of the present case satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in the absence of any response or evidence from the Respondent.
The Respondent could have claimed that one of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applied to the registration of the disputed domain name, e.g., by invoking paragraph 4(c) of the Policy to the satisfaction of the Panel that one of its three provisions applied in this case. However, the Respondent has chosen not to do so, and the Complainant has met its burden. The Complainant’s claim that it gave the Respondent no authority is not challenged by the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is hard to envisage a more blatant and brazen unauthorized use of a well-known name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name representing the Complainant’s name as his. One must suspect that the Respondent’s registered name is false. The Respondent’s name as the registered owner of the disputed domain name is the same as the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, it is not a usual name for an individual in India.
The use of the Complainant’s name and trademark makes a finding of bad faith registration and use rock-solid.
Even if the Respondent did not use the Complainant’s name when registering the disputed domain name, the fame of the Complainant’s worldwide mark, with its trademarks being registered in India, easily leads to a conclusion of bad faith registration.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s failure to respond to the cease-and-desist letter and the diversion of Internet users to a website of sponsored links reinforce the conclusion of bad faith.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is 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.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: March 29, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy