Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1981
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:08:16+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Frontline GmbH of Hamburg, Germany, represented by Siebeke Lange Wilbert, Germany.
The Respondent is Omar Virjee of Richmond, Texas, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <frontlinefashions.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (“the Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2012. On October 8, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 10, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center appointed Reynaldo Urtiaga Escobar as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant is an apparel and footwear retailer doing business exclusively online in Germany since 1995. The Complainant is incorporated and registered in Hamburg under the “frontline” company name, and also carries the “frontlineshop” trade name on the Internet.
The Complainant operates online stores at “www.frontline.eu”, “www.frontlinefashion.com”, “www.frontlineshop.com”, and “www.frontline-shop.com”, among twenty other gTLDS or ccTLDS including the term “frontlineshop”.
The Complainant holds registered marks for FRONTLINE and FRONTLINESHOP in Germany and in the European Union, since as early as August 8, 1995 in international classes 9, 14, 18, 25, 28 and 35.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 12, 2012. As of the date of this decision, the disputed domain name is parked with GoDaddy and the associated website shows nothing but sponsored links to apparel and fashion-related third party sites.
x. As held by prior panels, the Respondent is ultimately accountable for the advertisements displayed on the website at the disputed domain name.
The question under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, not whether the website to which the disputed domain name resolves will confuse Internet users. See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0834 (a complainant need not to establish actual confusion because the test is objective, not subjective).
The Complainant proves to hold registered trademark rights in the term FRONTLINE. The Complainant goes on to allege that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark because the Respondent’s domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of a generic word like ”fashions” does not detract from the visual, aural, and conceptual confusion between the disputed domain name and its FRONTLINE trademark.
Paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) makes clear that the test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a straightforward visual or aural comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion and that, in order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion.
In taking this approach, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s FRONTLINE trademark is sufficiently distinctive to be recognized as such within the disputed domain name. By contrast, “fashions” is a broadly general term that is regarded by the Panel as non-distinguishing subject-matter. It follows that its annexation to the disputed domain name does nothing to prevent the Internet user from being confused. See Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, WIPO Case No. D2000-0413 (the addition of the generic term "fashion" is not sufficient to avoid confusion); also Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. DFS Xcxc, WIPO Case No. D2011-2114 (the term “fashion” is generic, the addition of which is held insufficient to dispel confusing similarity).
This Panel therefore concludes that the domain name <frontlinefashions.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark FRONTLINE from a visual and literal standpoint.
The Complainant warrants to have never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its FRONTLINE trademark as a domain name. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. On these credible assertions and the evidence put forward regarding the use to which the disputed domain name has been subjected, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case against the Respondent.
In the absence of a Response, this Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. See Pavillion Agency, Inc., Cliff Greenhouse and Keith Greenhouse v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., and Glenn Greenhouse, WIPO Case No. D2000-1221 (finding that Respondent's failure to respond can be construed as an admission that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., eResolution Case No. AF-0336 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such rights or interests were immediately apparent to the panel and respondent did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Further, the printouts of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves show that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain, nor is it using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the website posts parking pages and sponsored hyperlinks to apparel and fashion-related websites resulting in misleading of Internet users. See United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Michael Robert, WIPO Case No. D2008-0339 (the respondent presumably earns revenues from the website at the domain name when Internet users click on sponsored advertising links. This constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under the domain name, nor a noncommercial or fair use thereof).
On the facts, the disputed domain name has been parked with the Registrar since its registration on July 12, 2012. It is further demonstrated that the web portal to which the disputed domain name resolves includes links to websites of third parties who are in the same business of the Complainant.
This constitutes direct evidence that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith for a profit, which is derived from click-through advertising revenue. See Iteso, A.C. v. Jose Colin, WIPO Case No. D2011-1686 ( the Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name was a parking page with pay-per-click links to third parties’ portals, thus triggering the ground of bad faith laid down by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
Moreover, the fact that the website at the disputed domain name provides access to fashion and apparel online retailers in Europe like the Complainant is a strong indication that the Respondent sought to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s FRONTLINE trademark and business when registering the disputed domain name.
In the premises, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <frontlinefashions.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.