Westmore · UDRP DecisionBoehringeringelheimpetrerebates.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that registration and use for a parking page containing commercial pay-per-click links constituted bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.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 boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward application of the UDRP where a well-known pharmaceutical trademark was incorporated in full into a domain used for sponsored links. The combination of longstanding trademark rights, complete incorporation of the mark, commercial pay-per-click use, and an unrebutted prima facie case supported findings for the Complainant on all three 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. D2020-3166 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 <boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.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 25, 2020. On November 25, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 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 family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885. The three business areas of the Complainant are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. The Complainant owns International registrations no. 221544 registered on July 2, 1959 for BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM and no. 568844 registered on March 22, 1991 for the trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM. The disputed domain name was registered on November 23, 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 addition of the terms “pet rerebates” 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 pet 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 in its entirety with the addition of the term “petrerebates”. The addition of this term 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, also in light of the Panel’s findings below, 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 few decades by the time the disputed domain name was registered. 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 pay-per-click links. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to attract traffic to its website and generate commercial gain. 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 names <boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: January 7, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around boehringeringelheimpetrerebates.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.