THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE COMPLAINANT`S TRADEMARK
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FRONTLINE and to the relative domain names registered by the Complainant, which has proven to have prior rights since many years before the registration of the disputed domain name.
In particular, the Panel agrees that the mere addition of the words “dogs” and “cats” even increase the impression that the disputed domain name is somehow affiliated to the Complainant. It is hard to believe that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.
Many UDRP decisions – even involving the present Complainant – confirmed that the addition of generic/descriptive terms does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.
There is no doubt that the same case lies before us in this matter.
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
According to the information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Likewise, the Complainant neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trademark FRONTLINE, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
It is undeniable that Complainant is only required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
Given all the above and taken into account the fact that the Respondent did not provide any appropriate nor exhaustive response within the present proceeding, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in <frontlinedogscats.com>.
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, which did not appropriately provide a reasoned response.
The disputed domain name redirects to a website with external commercial links related to animal care (the same business for which the trademark FRONTLINE is used by the Complainant) and such circumstance would demonstrate that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademark for its own commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s, which is an evidence of bad faith.
In the absence of an appropriate response from monika munjal and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks FRONTLINE in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the Panel believes that the same was registered and is being used in bad faith.
|