NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Complainant's contentions are the following:
The disputed domain name <frontlinefelines.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademarks FRONLINE.
The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “felines” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark FRONTLINE®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names associated. On the contrary, the association of term “felines” with the trademark refers to the Complainant’s products.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark FRONTLINE®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated. The Complainant made reference to the WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).
Consequently, in the Complainant’s view the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for a number of reasons.
In this sense, the Complainant first asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. The Complainant further makes reference to the panels’ decisions in cases Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”)
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant asserts that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark FRONTLINE, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name redirects to a blank page with message “Coming Soon“.
Lastly, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name has been registered, and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark FRONTLINE. The addition of words “felines” reinforces the impression to be affiliate to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark. Therefore, Internet users might be confused by thinking that the disputed domain name is related to the Complainant (and this seems to be the intent behind the registration).
The Complainant further asserts that the consensus view amongst panels appointed under the Policy is that the fact that a domain name is not active does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[f]rom the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0246).
On these bases, the Complainant concluded that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, the Complainant asserts that past Panels have confirmed that the Complainant’s trademarks FRONTLINE and FRONTLINE PLUS are well-known. Reference was made to CAC Case No. 103184, Merial v. Domain Administrator <frontlineplus.com> (“There is no question about the Complainant’s rights. These are well-known marks [FRONTLINE® and FRONTLINE PLUS®] and have been for many decades. The mark, Frontline Plus, is reproduced in its entirety and can only reference the Complainant’s most famous product.”).
|