{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108206", "time_of_filling": "2025-12-05 09:47:53", "domain_names": [ "frontlineplusforcats.com", "frontlineplusfordogs.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France " ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Test Boost Max Supplement (Test Boost Max Supplement)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:<\/span>

(a) the Complainant <\/span>is a global leader in the animal health industry and part of family-owned Boehringer Ingelheim, founded in 1885. Complainant's products <\/span>FRONTLINE\/FRONTLINE PLUS are indicated for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats<\/span>;<\/span>

(b) the Complainant is the owner of Complainant’s Trademarks;<\/span>

(c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same verbal element FRONTLINE; and<\/span>

(d) the disputed domain names resolve to generic webpages without any substantial content.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

THE COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

(i) <\/b>the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks because they incorporate such trademarks in their entirety. The inclusion of descriptive terms such as “PLUS,” “FOR CATS,” or “FOR DOGS” does not diminish the likelihood of confusion but rather reinforces it by referencing the Complainant’s specific product lines;<\/p>\n

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names in WHOIS records. There is no affiliation, license, or authorization between the parties, and the Respondent has never been authorized to use Complainant's Trademarks. Additionally, because the disputed domain names resolve to empty blog templates without substantive content, there is no evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial use of the disputed domain names; and<\/p>\n

(iii) the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith, given the long-established reputation of the “FRONTLINE” trademark and previous panel decisions recognizing its well-known status. Given the specific use of terms that mirror the Complainant’s specialized pet products, it is inferred that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. Finally, the lack of any plausible legitimate use for the parked domain names suggests they were acquired for infringing purposes, such as passing off or consumer deception.<\/p>\n

For these reasons, the Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT:

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights <\/span>within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP<\/strong>\" or \"Policy<\/strong>\").<\/span>

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/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": [ "Michal Matějka (Presiding Panelist)" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • International trademark FRONTLINE, No. 621912, registered since 9 June 1994; and<\/span><\/li>\n
  • International trademark FRONTLINE, No. 1245236, registered since 30 January 2015.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    (\"Complainant's Trademarks<\/strong>\").<\/span><\/p>\n

    The disputed domain names were registered on 2 December 2025.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "frontlineplusforcats.com": "TRANSFERRED", "frontlineplusfordogs.com": "TRANSFERRED" } }