{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108993", "time_of_filling": "2026-09-11 09:43:53", "domain_names": [ "frontline-spot-on.store" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France " ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "jason roy" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France, is a French company that is a global leader in the animal health industry and part of the family-owned Boehringer Ingelheim group, founded in 1885. Its FRONTLINE trademark is indicated professionally in its industry for the treatment and the prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats, breaking the life cycle of those infestations and aiding in the control of sarcoptic mange in dogs.<\/p>\n

The Complainant provides its goods and services under the FRONTLINE trademark.<\/p>\n

As well as the FRONTLINE trademark, the Complainant registered the domain name <frontline.com> on January 28,1999 which it uses in its business to promote its goods and services under the FRONTLINE trademark on the internet and to enable its customers to avail themselves of the Complainant's goods and services.<\/p>\n

It has come to the notice of the Complainant that, without any permission to do so, and well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights, the Respondent registered the domain name <frontline-spot-on.store> <\/strong>(\"the Disputed Domain Name\") on July 27, 2026 which consists of the FRONTLINE trademark, the generic words “spot” and “on”, some minor punctuation and the Top Level Domain “.store.” It has also come to the notice of the Complainant that the Respondent has caused the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to sell the Complainant’s FRONTLINE products. The Complainant maintains that this is a clear infringement of its FRONTLINE trademark and the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has therefore come to the conclusion that it should institute this proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"the Policy\") to protect its trademark rights and to protect innocent internet users who may be induced to believe that the Disputed Domain Name and the website to which it resolves are genuine, whereas the Complainant maintains that they are entirely illegal. The Complainant therefore brings this proceeding to obtain the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to itself.<\/p>\n

The Complainant seeks to have the Disputed Domain Name transferred on the grounds that it is confusingly similar to the FRONTLINE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it and that the Respondent has registered and used it in bad faith. <\/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

    \n
  1. The Complainant, Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health France, is a French company that is a global leader in the animal health industry and part of the family-owned Boehringer  Ingelheim group, founded in 1885.<\/li>\n
  2. The Complainant has acquired trademark rights in FRONTLINE by its aforesaid registration of the FRONTLINE trademark.<\/li>\n
  3. The Complainant uses and has for many years used its FRONTLINE trademark to provide its goods and services which are used and widely recognised to be used for the treatment and prevention of fleas, ticks and chewing lice in dogs and cats, breaking the life cycle of those infestations, and aiding in the control of sarcoptic mange in dogs.<\/li>\n
  4. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 27, 2026.<\/li>\n
  5. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FRONTLINE trademark because it includes the entirety of the FRONTLINE trademark, with the addition of the generic words “spot” and “on”, some minor punctuation, and the addition of the Top Level Domain “.store.” In particular, the Complainant submits that internet users would take the Disputed Domain Name to be a domain name of the Complainant or one that is authorized by it. Moreover, the Complainant submits that the presence of the words “spot”and “on” would not result in the negation of that conclusion, but that their inclusion reinforces the risk of confusion with specific products of the Complainant being offered by the Complainant under its FRONTLINE trademark and brand. <\/li>\n
  6. As a consequence, it is submitted that the Disputed Domain Name would be understood by internet users to be invoking the Complainant and its trademark, although the Respondent had no authority to do so.<\/li>\n
  7. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. That is submitted on the following grounds, namely that:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    • the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy;<\/li>\n
    • there is no affiliation, business or other relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent;<\/li>\n
    • the Disputed Domain Name has been used by the Respondent to resolve to a website purporting to sell the Complainant’s FRONTLINE products;<\/li>\n
    • the aforesaid use of the Disputed Domain Name evinces the intention of the Respondent to trade on the reputation of the Complainant’s FRONTLINE trademark suggesting, as it does, that the aforesaid website is an official and genuine website of the Complainant, which it is not;<\/li>\n
    • the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy;<\/li>\n
    • the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy; and<\/li>\n
    • there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be argued that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      1. The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith on the grounds that:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        • the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRONTLINE trademark and which was registered long after the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights;<\/li>\n
        • the Respondent had actual knowledge of the FRONTLINE trademark and the Complainant's rights in it when it, the Respondent, registered the Disputed Domain Name;<\/li>\n
        • the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that purports to offer the Complainant’s products for sale;<\/li>\n
        • the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent has the potential to disrupt the Complainant’s business within the meaning of paragraph 4 (b)(iii) of the Policy;<\/li>\n
        • the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent has the potential to generate confusion within the meaning of paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy; and<\/li>\n
        • there is no plausible ground on which it could be argued that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used otherwise than in bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          Accordingly, it is submitted that the Complainant will be able to establish all of the elements it is required to prove and that it is entitled to the relief that is seeks, namely transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to itself.<\/p>\n

          RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

          The Respondent is in default and did not file a Response in this proceeding.<\/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": [ "Neil Brown" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

          The Complainant has established that it owns the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n

            \n
          • the International trademark for FRONTLINE, registered number 621912, registered with WIPO on June 9, 1994;<\/li>\n
          • the International trademark for FRONTLINE, registered number 1245236, registered with WIPO on January 30, 2015;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            (collectively the “FRONTLINE trademark“).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "frontline-spot-on.store": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }