Getoptivite.com

The timeline behind getoptivite.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Allergy Research Group, LLC v. a3 offers Case No. D2026-0198 1. The Parties The Complainant is Allergy Research Group, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Mosaic Legal Group, PLLC, United States. The Respondent is a3 offers, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <getoptivite.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown, Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 20, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 20, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on January 20, 2026. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 2026. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant or its predecessor in title has used the mark OPTIVITE in commerce in the United States for many years in connection with multi-vitamin and mineral dietary food supplement products. The Complainant owns United States trade mark registration number 1491904 for OPTIVITE which was registered on June 14, 1988. The disputed domain name was registered on October 28, 2025, and resolves to a website which advertises an “OptiVite +” dietary supplement product which is described on the website as an “advanced vision support formula”. The website encourages Internet users to purchase these products by allowing them to click on “Buy Now” buttons which re-direct them to a third-party payment website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it owns registered trade mark rights for its OPTIVITE mark as set out above. It says that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its coined OPTIVITE mark and that the addition of the word “get” is inconsequential, as it is merely an instruction to the consumer to “get” or to “purchase” the OPTIVITE product, which the Complainant notes has no meaning other than as a brand name. Accordingly, it submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its OPTIVITE registered trade mark. The Complainant submits that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It says that Internet searches do not identify a business named “Get Optivite ” or “Optivite ” at the Complainant’s address. It notes that after the Registrar disclosed the Respondent’s name in this proceeding the Complainant’s representatives undertook various searches which indicate that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with a physical address in the United Kingdom, a telephone number in the United States, a reference to providing services out of Latin America (including an email address using the Spanish language (namely, “contato” or “contact”) and a publicly listed WhoIs address in Iceland at which, says the Complainant, there is no indication of a business called “Get Optivite ” or “Optivite ”. It notes that the address in Iceland appears to be well known as an address for “sketchy” websites. As a result, and since the mark OPTIVITE was a coined term fabricated by Complainant’s predecessor in interest, the Complainant submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that by using the registered mark OPTIVITE on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and by purporting to offer supplements branded as “OptiVite+”, the Respondent is intentionally trying to trick consumers into thinking that the Complainant is behind the disputed domain name. It notes that the only active portion of this website allows consumers to click on the three green “BUY NOW” tabs which redirect them to a third-party payment site. However, says the Complainant, every other link on the website at the disputed domain name redirects consumers to the very top of the same homepage, giving them no further information and no other choice except to purchase. By way of example, it notes that at the very bottom of the website page clicking on the links for “Track Order”, “Support”, “Privacy Policy”, or “Terms of Service”, only redirects Internet users to the top of the same page such that there is no way of contacting the website owner. The Complainant submits that any commercial website being operated in good faith would give its users a method of communication. The Complainant has confirmed that several Internet users have complained to it about the fraudulent nature of the website at the disputed domain name. It says that the fraudulent conduct of the Respondent in attempting to pass itself off as being or related to the Complainant, infringes the Complainant’s registered page 3 trade marks and damages the goodwill of the Complainant’s business. The Complainant says that this is clear evidence of the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent sent the following communication to the Centre on January 20, 2026: “The Respondent hereby consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant and requests termination of the proceeding without a decision on the merits.” No formal Response was filed. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the word “get”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Considering that the Complainant’s OPTIVITE mark appears to be a coined term, that the Complainant’s searches demonstrate no evidence of the Respondent being known as or operating a bona fide business under this mark or the disputed domain name and in view of the unauthorised use of the Complainant’s mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and the lack of bona fide information about the purchase process and the Respondent on that website, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any page 4 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. For these reasons and as set out under Section C below, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name recently and many years after the Complainant registered its OPTIVITE trade mark in the United States. The Complainant’s trade mark appears to be a coined term with no separate meaning in English and it enjoys a level of distinctiveness for dietary supplement products. The use of this mark by the Respondent at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves for a dietary supplement product indicates that it is more than likely that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s OPTIVITE mark and dietary supplement products when it registered the disputed domain name in October 2025. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. In this case the Respondent has used the disputed domain name featuring the Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website which is branded as “OptiVite+” and offers three “OptiVite+” supplement products to Internet users at what appear to be heavily discounted prices. There is no disclaimer to suggest that the website is not owned, sponsored by, or affiliated with, the Complainant’s business or with its OPTIVITE mark and dietary supplement products. The Respondent has, in the Panel’s view, intentionally sought to use the disputed domain name to confuse and attract Internet users seeking the Complainant’s business and products to its own website as if it was related to or was so authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent’s product sale offer appears to be for its own commercial purposes. This amounts to conduct in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The fact that the Respondent went to the trouble of registering the disputed domain name in October 2025 and setting up the website to which it resolves and then after receipt of these proceedings immediately requested the Center to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant without proceeding to a substantive decision, only serves to reinforce, in all of the circumstances described above, the Panel’s view of the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <getoptivite.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alistair Payne/ Alistair Payne Sole Panelist Date: March 8, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.