URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Respondent is not known as the domain name. See NAF FA699652 - Braun Corp. v. Loney. Respondent asserts that -- “the disputed domain name had in fact been registered to create a blog for a friend named 欧风儿(ou feng er) as a birthday present.” The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without any legitimate right or interest in it, for the purpose and with the intention of preventing the Complainant from registering the domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

The Respondent asserts that, in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2016-0835, Complainant's Complaint against Respondent in connection with this same domain name was dismissed. Respondent avers that the Complainant "has no new evidence whatsoever" to support its claims of bad faith registration and use by the Respondent in the current URS proceedings. This Examiner rejects the Respondent's position. The Panelist in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2016-0835 had noted that the Respondent's defense (e.g., that the domain name had in fact been registered to create a blog for a friend named “欧风儿(ou feng er)” as a birthday present), "is not particularly credible or satisfactory". The Panelist elected in those administrative proceedings to dismiss the complaint "without prejudice to the Complainant bringing another UDRP complaint should it obtain evidence of registration in bad faith ...". The Complainant has differently alleged in the current URS proceedings, as it is entitled to do, that its trademark "OFEV" has been registered with the Trade Mark Clearing House ("TMCH") since July 27th, 2015, and that as a result, the Respondent would necessarily have received notice and "was aware of the Complainant’s trademark 'OFEV' at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name". This additional evidence of registration and current use of the trademark, as validated by the TMCH on or about July 27, 2015, establishes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name. This was the missing link in the chain in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2016-0835, which seemed to have troubled the Panelist in those proceedings, but which has been proven and established to the requisite "clear and convincing" standard of proof here.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

ofev.wang

	Complainant Submitted: August 30, 2016
	Commencement: September 1, 2016
	Response Date: September 14, 2016
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

	Complainant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH of Ingelheim, Germany
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

	Respondent: sushanying sushanying sushanying of Maomingshi, Guangdong, II, CN

	Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited
	Registrars: xiamen eName Technology

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner