{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103255",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-08-31 10:56:26",
    "domain_names": [
        "frontline.plus"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH FRANCE \/ MERIAL"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "S Jon Grant"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a leading global player in the pet and equine markets. The Complainant submits evidence that it has registered rights in the trade mark FRONTLINE for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats, and aids in the control of sarcoptic mange in dogs, namely International trade mark registration no. 1245236, dated 30 January 2015, for the word mark FRONTLINE.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <frontline.plus> was registered on 21 August 2020. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark FRONTLINE, and to the Complainant’s US trade mark registration no. 2763796, for the word mark FRONTLINE PLUS, dated 16 September 2003, the latter of which was registered in the name of the company Merial Corporation. The Complainant states that Merial Corporation was integrated into its corporation in 2017 (collectively, the Complainant’s trade marks). The Complainant argues that the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trade marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name <frontline.plus>.\r\n\r\nRelying on the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0), paragraph 1.11, the Complainant further contends that the Top Level Domain (TLD) suffix (“.plus”) is typically disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trade marks. \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Respondent. There is no contractual arrangement between the parties to that effect, nor has the Complainant otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade marks, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant’s behalf.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database information of record for the disputed domain name, which would suggest that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activities, and that past UDRP panels have found this not to be a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant advises that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale, which would further evidence the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the sole intention to sell it for out-of-pockets costs, which evidences bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that, by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is intentionally using it to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website thereby creating a likelihood of confusion. The Complainant also avers that the Respondent is attempting to attract for commercial gain users to its website by creating the impression that the Respondent’s website is somehow associated with the Complainant.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. \r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks: \r\n\r\n(i) International trade mark registration no.1245236, dated 30 January 2015, for the word mark FRONTLINE, in classes 3 and 5 of the Nice Classification; and \r\n\r\n(ii) US trade mark registration no. 2763796, dated 16 September 2003, for the word mark FRONTLINE PLUS, in class 5 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\nThe second of these marks is registered in the name of Merial Corporation. Nonetheless, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant also has trade mark rights in the terms FRONTLINE PLUS. In effect, although the USPTO register provides that the FRONTLINE PLUS mark’s holder is Merial Corporation, the Panel notes the following: (i) the Complainant states in the Complaint that “the company MERIAL was integrated in this unite on [sic] 2017”, and this has not been disputed by the Respondent; (ii) the trade mark holders of FRONTLINE and FRONTLINE PLUS share the same postal address on their respective registers; and (iii) the Complainant’s website provides an express reference to FRONTLINE PLUS as its trade mark.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FRONTLINE.PLUS": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}