The Panel in this uncontested proceeding decides as follows with respect to the UDRP's three-part cumulative test:
1. Identicality or confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the “FRONTLINE” brand, which is the sole component of the disputed domain name's stem. However, “frontline” is, on its own, a generic term that can be used in a great many instances, several of which will not be challengeable by the Complainant. It is the particularity of this proceeding that the Respondent has combined this term semantically with the gTLD suffix “dog”. Doing so connotes the area of the Complainant's business to which its trademark-protected products pertain and the Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the "FRONTLINE" trademark in particular.
2. The Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name
This criterion requires sufficient proof in each proceeding, including by reasonable inference from the circumstances of the proceeding.
In the present case, the Panel is not convinced by certain of the Complainant’s assertions, namely as to:
• The validity of the analogy to the Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Pan Jing case, since the product brand concerned there (COMBIVENT) was a highly distinctive one, whereas “FRONTLINE” is a generic term and it thus opens up greater potential scope for competing rights or legitimate interests with those of the Complainant.
• The probative value of the “cursory internet search” results that the Complainant advances, since Google, the search engine used, customizes searches based on previous activity, which the Complainant’s Authorized Representative -- who performed the search -- is likely to have had with respect to the Complainant itself.
On the other hand, the Case File itself – especially the Respondent’s identification details – put the Panel on inquiry as to the veracity of the Respondent’s identity, from which it noticed that:
• the first name in the Protonmail (privacy) e-mail address corresponds to a form different from its usual rendition in Portuguese (i.e. “Gabriela”, as opposed to “Gabriella” as used in the registrar details obtained by the CAC Case Administrator) and
• the postal address lacked any street number, indicating only a tower at a large downtown centre in São Paulo.
The Panel therefore exercised its general powers to investigate the identification details further and determined that the telephone number given relates to a restaurant in a different street, while the Respondent’s name as it appears in this proceeding is the same as in other ADR proceedings whose findings demonstrate instances of very similar domain name abuse as is alleged here as well as potentially serious fraud (see for example Rheem Manufacturing Company v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo Case No. D2020-2115 and Spinrite Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella GarloCase No. D2021-0012).
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant or identifiable by the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore for these reasons finds that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
3. The Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name
The Panel, taking note of the above circumstances, accepts that the purpose of the Respondent's registering and using the disputed domain name is for commercial gain through attracting internet users thanks to creating an association with the Complainant's trademark-protected brand, and it finds that the registration and use of the disputed domain name are thereby in bad faith.
The Panel accordingly orders the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant.
|