{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106957", "time_of_filling": "2024-10-16 10:50:05", "domain_names": [ "frontlinefood.shop" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France " ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Ryan Keith Lepper" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health business is a global company oriented to the animal health industry and part of family-owned Boehringer Ingelheim, founded in 1885. <\/span><\/p>\n

Its sub brand FRONTLINE is indicated for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats. Also breaks the flea life cycle by preventing the development of immature stages. It aids in the control of sarcoptic mange in dogs.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Besides the registered trademarks, the Complainant also adduced evidence to show it is the registrant of the domain name <<\/span> frontline.com> registered and used since 28 January, 1999<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

No information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain name <<\/span>frontlinefood.shop<\/span>> on 17 September, 2024 and resolves to an error page. <\/span><\/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' CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <<\/span> frontlinefood.shop<\/span>> and the Complainant's registered trademarks FRONTLINE are confusingly similar. <\/span><\/p>\n

Particularly, the Complainant contends that “<\/em><\/span>The addition of generic term “FOOD” 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.<\/span><\/em>”.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name nor appear in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized in other way to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor is in any way related to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name points to an error page and that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name nor has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that its registered trademark is a well-known trademark and that past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark, for instance CAC Case No. 103184, Merial v. Domain Administrator <frontlineplus.com>.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, according to the Complainant, the Respondent certainly had full knowledge of the Complainant rights over the name FRONTLINE at the time of the disputed domain name’s registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the fact that the disputed domain name has not been actively used is per se an evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n