Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108006

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the registered owner of the following international trademarks for <FRONTLINE>:

• International trademark no. 621912 registered since June 9, 1994 for goods in class 5. This mark has duly been renewed and is in force;
• International trademark no. 1245236 registered since January 30, 2015 for goods in classes 3 and 5.

1. The Complainant is a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise with roots going back to 1885. FRONTLINE is indicated for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats.
2. It results from the registrar verification that the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the current registrant was August 6, 2025.
3. According to the undisputed evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name directs to an online store that offers pet health products, including both the Complainant’s own products and competing products, at discounted prices.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant’s registered trademark “FRONTLINE” is identically included in the disputed domain name. It is merely combined with the term "sale" placed after the trademark at the end of the second level domain. This term is descriptive for an online shopping page. It is acknowledged amongst UDRP-Panels that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.

2.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

3.
Finally, the Panel holds that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.  In the present case, the Panel notes that it results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolved to a website purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s products and competitive products. For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent positively knew the Complainant’s mark.  Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. In this regard, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) the nature of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s mark identically plus the addition of a descriptive term);

(ii) the content of the website to which the disputed domain name directs, purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s products and competitive products;

(iii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response to the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name; and

(iv) the fact that the address data provided by the Respondent in the registration details of the disputed domain name does not appear to be accurate, taking into account the courier’s inability to deliver the CAC´s written notice communication to the address.