Westmore · UDRP DecisionBoehringeringlheimequinerebates.com
The Panel ordered transfer of the domain after finding that it typosquatted the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM mark and a domain used by the Complainant for equine rebates. The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and its use of the domain for a parking page with commercial links was found to constitute bad-faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind boehringeringlheimequinerebates.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind boehringeringlheimequinerebates.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a strong targeting pattern where a domain does more than approximate a trademark: it also closely tracks a domain used by the trademark owner for a specific commercial subject. Combined with sponsored-link use and the absence of a rebuttal, that dual targeting supported findings across all three UDRP elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co.Kg v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Case No. D2020-2915 1. The Parties The Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co.Kg, Germany, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <boehringeringlheimequinerebates.com> is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2020. On November 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 9, 2020, 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 November 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 29, 2020. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2021. 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 pharmaceutical group that operates globally. The Complainant owns International trademark registration nos. 221544, registered on July 2, 1959 for BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, and 568844, registered in March 22, 1991 for BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM (jointly referred to as “BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM”). The disputed domain name was registered on November 2, 2020, and resolves to a parking page with sponsored links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. The Complainant’s trademark is misspelled by removing an “e” and a hyphen. These two modifications do not eliminate the likelihood of confusing similarity. The addition of the terms “equine rebates” does not eliminate confusing similarity. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not seem to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Respondent is not using or preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known and the Complainant is a leading pharmaceutical company. Additionally, the disputed domain name is confusing with the Complainant’s domain name that offers rebates on equine products. Consequently, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM with the deletion of a letter “e” and the hyphen (contained in a number of the Complainant’s trademarks). This is a case of typosquatting. The addition of the term “equine rebates” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity, as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s trademark is a well-known trademark and had been registered for several decades by the time the disputed domain name was registered. As provided in the Complaint, the disputed domain name is similar to a domain name used by the Complainant, missing only a letter “e”. Thus, the disputed domain name not only contains a typo of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark, but also constitutes a typo of a domain name used by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains commercial links. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to attract traffic to its website and generate commercial gain. Based on the submissions in the present proceeding and in the absence of any claims or evidence from the Respondent, the Panel is unable to determine any plausible good faith use of the disputed domain name that could be made by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service in the above circumstances supports an inference of bad faith. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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, <boehringeringlheimequinerebates.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: January 15, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around boehringeringlheimequinerebates.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.