Westmore · UDRP DecisionNutrofs.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <nutrofs.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NUTROF mark because it added only the letter “s”; found no rights or legitimate interests because there was no authorization, bona fide business, or evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the domain; and found bad-faith registration and use because the domain resolved to a parking page with commercial links and was used to trade on the distinctive NUTROF mark.
The timeline behind nutrofs.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind nutrofs.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward single-letter domain variation combined with commercial parking-page use. The outcome rested not merely on the close textual resemblance, but on the absence of any supported legitimate explanation, links related to the Complainant’s field, and the Panel’s finding that NUTROF was distinctive and had no dictionary meaning in French or English.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Laboratoires Thea v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD Case No. D2021-0412 1. The Parties The Complainant is Laboratoires Thea, France, represented by AARPI Scan Avocats, France. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nutrofs.com> is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2021. On February 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2021, 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 verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2021. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2021. 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a European pharmaceutical Company. The Complainant offers a range of diagnostic, surgical, and therapeutical eye care products including the product Nutrof. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for NUTROF (the “Mark”): - European Union word mark No. 002044030 filed on January 16, 2001, and registered on March 28, 2002 for products in classes 3 and 5 (duly renewed); - French word mark No. 3477674 registered on January 29, 2007 for products in class 5 (duly renewed); - International word mark No. 931136 registered on July 6, 2007 for products in class 5 (duly renewed). The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating the Mark including <nutrof.com> and <nutrof.fr>. The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a parking page with links directly related to Complainant’s area of activity. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed by adding the letter “s” to the Mark. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark, that the Respondent is not known by the Mark or disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the Mark. The Complainant also asserts the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to lure for commercial gain unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website that features assorted links to competitive products. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The disputed domain name is composed by the addition of the letter “s” to the Complainant’s Mark. A domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7 . The addition of the letter “s” is a trivial modification that does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Health Limited v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhongqi Jia / Effie Sokolowski, WIPO Case No. D2020-3110 .The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1 ; Laboratoires Thea v. see PrivacyGuardian.org / Vlad Ivleev, WIPO Case No. D2020-3413 . The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The confusingly similar disputed domain name resolved to a parking website offering links to various products and services. Given the Complainant’s distinctive Mark, which has no dictionary meaning in French or English, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 . It is abundantly clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using the disputed domain name to trade on the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision 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 <nutrofs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around nutrofs.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.