{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105944", "time_of_filling": "2023-11-08 09:47:04", "domain_names": [ "frontlineplusfordogsfleas.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Dmytro Fedoruk" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant carries on business as a provider of animal health products and is the owner of the registered trademark FRONTLINE which is used for products for the  treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims rights in the Disputed Domain Name established by its ownership of the trademark registrations described above and extensive use of the FRONTLINE mark in its animal health products in trade, including on its website at <www.frontline.com>.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that it has an established Internet presence and owns a portfolio of Internet domain names consisting of or incorporating the term “FRONTLINE”, including the domain name <frontline.com> registered and used since January 28, 1999.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <frontlineplusfordogsfleas.com> was registered on October 27, 2023 and resolves to parking page with commercial links and  Respondent has created a DNS mail exchange record (“MX”).<\/p>\n

 There is no information available about the Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Center for details of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of this proceeding. The Registrar has confirmed that the Respondent is the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed Domain Name .<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the FRONTLINE trademark in which the Complainant has rights arguing that the addition of generic terms “PLUS FOR DOGS FLEAS” to the FRONTLINE mark, does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark FRONTLINE.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that the additional terms do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant, its trademarks and the Complainant’s associated domain names, but on the contrary, the association of terms “plus for dogs fleas” worsens the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name And the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name directly refers to to the Complainant’s products FRONTLINE PLUS FOR DORGS, a treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs.<\/p>\n

The Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, arguing that the Respondent is not identified by the Disputed Domain Name in the WhoIs database. Past panels established under the Policy have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name at issue if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Citing for instance Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Group Forum Claim<\/em> Forum Claim FA 1781783, <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).”).<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not engage in any activity for the Complainant, nor does the Complainant carry out any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Complainant asserts that it has granted neither license nor authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark FRONTLINE, nor to apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the screen capture of the webpage to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a registrar’s parking page with commercial links. It is contended that past panels established under the Policy have found that such use of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide <\/em>offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use for the purposes of the Policy. The Complainant cites for example Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend <\/em>Forum Claim FA 970871, (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that the Disputed Domain Name, which Is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRONTLINE and FRONTLINE PLUS marks was registered several years after the registration of the Complainant’s marks.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant again refers to the screen capture of the webpage to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, and argues that by using the Disputed Domain Name as the address of a parking page with commercial links the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith. Citing for instance  StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2018- 0497, (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”).<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant refers to the results of a DNS query search which it has carried out, and is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The search result confirms that MX servers are configured to the Disputed Domain Name, which Complainant argues, suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. Citing for example, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono <\/em>CAC Case No. 102827 (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "James Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks for and incorporating the term “FRONTLINE” including the following:<\/p>\n