Westmore · UDRP DecisionBoehringeringelheimimpetrebates.com, Boehringeringelhemimpetrebates.com, Boehringeringelhheimpetrebates.com
The Panel ordered transfer of all three disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM trademarks because the mark remained recognizable despite minor misspellings and the addition of the descriptive terms “pet rebates.” Complainant established a prima facie case that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which Respondent did not rebut. The Panel also found bad-faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), concluding that the requirements for intentional attraction of Internet users for commercial gain through confusion were met.
The timeline behind boehringeringelheimimpetrebates.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 boehringeringelheimimpetrebates.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
This decision illustrates a consolidated typosquatting pattern involving several domains registered on the same day, each combining a recognizable misspelling of a distinctive pharmaceutical mark with wording corresponding to Complainant’s existing pet-rebates domain. The Panel’s analysis shows that minor letter changes and descriptive additions do not prevent confusing similarity where the trademark remains recognizable. It also demonstrates how unrebutted allegations of commercial-link parking can support findings on both legitimate interests and bad faith when the Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) is met.
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 Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. Case No. D2021-0435 1. The Parties Complainant is Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co.Kg., Germany, represented by Nameshield, France. Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The Disputed Domain Names <boehringeringelheimimpetrebates.com>, <boehringeringelhemimpetrebates.com>, and <boehringeringelhheimpetrebates.com> are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2021. On February 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On February 15, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 24, 2021. The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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 Complainant is a 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. Since then, Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today about roughly 51,000 employees. The three business areas of Complainant are human pharmaceuticals, animal health and biopharmaceuticals. In 2019, net sales of the group amounted to EUR 19 billion. Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the terms “Boehringer Ingelheim” in several countries (the “BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks”) including: - the international trademark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM No. 221544, registered July 2, 1959; and - the international trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM No. 568844 registered March 22, 1991. Furthermore, Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “Boehringer Ingelheim” such as <boehringeringelheimpetrebates.com> registered and used since August 14, 2019. The Disputed Domain Names were registered on February 9, 2021. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar with the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant further contends that the addition of the letters “im”, “m” or “h” to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and the deletion of the hyphen are not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. Complainant further contends that these changes do not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to Complainant’s trademarks and are typosquatting by Respondent. Complainant further contends that the addition of the terms “pet rebates” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. Complainant further contends that it does not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to use the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and that Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor have any business with Respondent. Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to a parking page with commercial links, hence not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial use. Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Complainant further argues that it is one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 51,000 employees worldwide and EUR 19 billion in net sales. Complainant further argues that Respondent chose to register the Disputed Domain Names to intentionally create confusion with Complainant’s domain name <boehringeringelhempetrebates.com>, used by Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products. Complainant further argues that given its strong market presence and given the distinctiveness of the BOEHRINGER INGEHEIM Marks, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names with full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. Complainant concludes that the allegation that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to a parking page with commercial links supports the finding that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own websites using the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks, which is additional evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: i) that the Disputed Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks in which Complainant has rights; and, ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and, iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends that it has numerous registrations of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of Complainant having enforceable rights in the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. Respondent has not contested Complainant’s trademark registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable trademarks for purposes of this proceeding. Complainant contends that Respondent is typosquatting by the addition of the letters “im”, “m” or “h” to the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and the deletion of the hyphen from the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which says that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. Also see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of UDRP standing. Also see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Also see section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 instructs that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) such as “.com” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity. The Panel finds that the term “pet rebates” is descriptive and non-distinctive. The Panel also finds that the gTLD “.com” is not significant for purposes of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the BOEHINGER INGLEHEIM Marks and Complainant has showed the necessary elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that once a complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating 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. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy allows three nonexclusive methods for the Panel to conclude that Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the BOERHINGER INGELHEIM Marks or service mark at issue. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to use the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks and that Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor have any business with Respondent. Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to a parking page with commercial links, hence not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent has failed to contest Complainant’s arguments. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the required elements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of domain names: (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Names registration to Complainant who is the owner of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Names; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names in order to prevent the owner of the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Names, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the BOERHINGER INGELHEIM Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product. Complainant further argues that it is one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, with roughly 51,000 employees worldwide and EUR 19 billion in net sales. Complainant further argues that Respondent chose to register the Disputed Domain Names to intentionally create confusion with Complainant’s domain name <boehringeringelhempetrebates.com>, used by Complainant to offer rebates on pet health products. Complainant further argues that given its strong market presence and given the distinctiveness of the BOEHRINGER INGEHEIM Marks, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names with full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. Complainant concludes that the allegation that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to a parking page with commercial links supports the finding that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own websites using the BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Marks, which is additional evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has shown the necessary elements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, thus showing Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith in satisfaction of 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, <boehringeringelheimimpetrebates.com>, <boehringeringelhemimpetrebates.com> and <boehringeringelhheimpetrebates.com> be transferred to Complainant. Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around boehringeringelheimimpetrebates.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.