{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103760", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-28 09:45:28", "domain_names": [ "frontline.dog" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH FRANCE " ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Gabriella Garlo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. Part of its business is in pet and equine healthcare products which include the trademark-registered brand “FRONTLINE”, indicated for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice on dogs and for control of canine sarcoptic mange. A variant, “FRONTLINE PLUS”, is available for both dogs and cats.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nIn addition to these facts, the CAC Case Administrator included in the Case File the CAC e-mail to the Respondent giving notification of the present proceeding with proof that this was successfully relayed. The Respondent’s e-mail provider is Protonmail.com.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name. ", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nWith respect to identification of its rights (see above heading), the Complainant contends that it possesses a larger portfolio of trademarks and several further domain names comprising the terms “FRONTLINE” (without submitting evidence in these regards).\r\n\r\nWith respect to the UDRP's requirements and relying throughout on the Decisions of previous UDRP ADR Panels, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name's stem is identical to its trademark-protected “FRONTLINE” brand. The TLD suffix “.DOG” for its part does not change the overall impression of connection to the Complainant's “FRONTLINE” brand or prevent the likelihood of confusion with it.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant invokes especially WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., as to it being required to make out only a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the UDRP.\r\n\r\nIt then further contends that:\r\n\r\n•\tThe disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark.\r\n•\tThe addition of the TLD designator <.DOG> is not coincidental, as it refers to the Complainant’s activities related to its mark.\r\n•\tAll Google results for the terms “FRONTLINE” with “DOG\" relate to the Complainant’s products (a screenshot is adduced in support of this contention).\r\n•\tIt is inconceivable that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name without the Complainant and its trademark in mind, whereas, as noted in a previous ADR case successfully brought by the Complainant against a different Respondent, WIPO Case No. D2017-0660, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Pan Jing, a cursory internet search would have disclosed the trade mark and its extensive use by the Complainant.\r\n•\tThe Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way.\r\n•\tThe Respondent is not identifiable by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThirdly and lastly, the Respondent has attempted for the Respondent's own commercial gain to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website thanks to unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademarks, which is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "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).", "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 the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Panel nevertheless observes that the factual analysis provided by the Complainant omitted checking certain basic details, notably the veracity of the Respondent's name, postal address and telephone number, which would have revealed significant flaws in these identification details. The Panel was therefore obliged to take these flaws into account on the basis of its own analysis of the Case File and to perform a rudimentary check of its own through use of its general powers under the Rules. \r\n\r\nGreater diligence as to checking basic factual data is thus recommended to future Complainants.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Kevin J. Madders" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- International trademark No. 621912 \"FRONTLINE\", registered since 9 June 1994 in Class 5 of the Nice Classification List;\r\n- International trademark No. 1245236 \"FRONTLINE\", registered since 30 January 2015 in Classes 3 and 5.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registrant of . \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on 21 April 2021.", "decision_domains": { "FRONTLINE.DOG": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }