Preservision.website

The timeline behind preservision.website

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 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. CEJERA JANEE KELLEY, PreserVision? Case No. D2026-0271 1. The Parties Complainant is Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Adams & Reese, LLP, United States. Respondent is CEJERA JANEE KELLEY, PreserVision?, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <preservision.website> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2026. On January 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 23, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0176576744) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 29, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 29, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2026. The Center appointed Clark W. Lackert as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 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 Complainant is the owner of various trademarks and trade dress elements related to the PRESERVISION line of eye vitamins, and uses the domain name <preservision.com> to host its official site. Genuine PRESERVISION eye vitamins are designed for individuals diagnosed with moderate to advanced age- related macular degeneration and are in most cases taken by consumers based on a recommendation from their ophthalmologist or optometrist. Complainant sells its PRESERVISION-branded eye vitamins through a network of authorized retailers, including some of the largest retailers in the United States. Complainant also sells its products through its “www.preservision.com” website and related websites. Complainant’s domain name <preservision.com> was registered on February 6, 2002. Complainant has engaged in extensive advertising and promotion of its PRESERVISION mark and products sold under the mark, including through television, digital advertising, print media, and other advertising and promotional campaigns. Complainant claims it has spent considerable funds promoting the PRESERVISION brand since its launch in 2001. Complainant asserts that it owns valid and subsisting registrations for the PRESERVISION mark in numerous jurisdictions, including but not limited to Argentina, Australia, Benelux, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, the Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. A sample of Complainant’s relevant trademark registrations is as follows: Trademark Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date PRESERVISION United States 2696725 March 11, 2003 PRESERVISION United States 4818033 September 22, 2015 PRESERVISION & Design United States 7138986 August 15, 2023 PRESERVISION European Union 3253333 January 17, 2005 The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2025. It previously resolved to a website mimicking that of Complainant and offering Complainant’s “Preservision”-branded eye vitamins. According to the Complaint, Complainant had also received phone calls from its customers who mistakenly believed that the website at the disputed domain name was operated by Complainant. Subsequently, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s PRESERVISION mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the PRESERVISION mark in its entirety. As many UDRP panels have recognized, a domain name’s incorporation of a registered trademark in its entirety, or a close approximation thereof, is sufficient to establish that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to that mark, particularly where the mark is the dominant element of the domain name. E.g., Milliman, Inc. v. ICS Inc, WIPO Case No. D2017-0360 stating that “Confusing similarity will often result where the disputed domain name wholly incorporates or reproduces a principal component of the complainant’s trademark”); Berlitz Investment Corporation v. Marcus Santamaria, WIPO Case No. D2006-1082 (stating that “[t]he vast majority of UDRP panelists recognize that ‘a domain name is ‘identical or confusingly similar’ to a trademark for purposes of the [UDRP] when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name’”). The disputed domain name is therefore identical to the PRESERVISION mark. page 3 Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant is the exclusive owner of the PRESERVISION mark. None of the circumstances provided in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy for demonstrating a respondent’s rights to and legitimate interests in a domain name are present in this case. To Complainant’s knowledge, “Preservision” is not Respondent’s name, and Respondent is not, and has never been commonly known as “Preservision.” Respondent is not, and has never been, a licensee of Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant to register or use the PRESERVISION mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner. At the time Complainant’s customer service team received calls from customers complaining of the website at the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name was directing to a “copycat” website using Complainant’s trademarks and copyright-protected content to pass itself off as the official PRESERVISION website. Based on calls received from customers, Respondent appears to be using the website connected with the disputed domain name to simply collect financial information from online shoppers who believed they were ordering genuine PRESERVISION eye vitamins from Complainant’s official PRESERVISION website. Such fraudulent conduct does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Sergio Rossi S.P.A. v. Liu dexing / Name Redacted / Kyu, John Rex / Jia Qi Yuan, Yi Wu Shi Yi Yun Dian Zi Shang Wu You Xian Gong Si, WIPO Case No. D2019-2330, finding where the disputed domain names were being passively held, but were previously used in connection with websites displaying the complainant’s trademark and offering for sale the complainant’s products, that “[r]egardless of whether the products sold on the Respondent’s website were genuine or counterfeit, . . . the display of the Complainant’s SERGIO ROSSI figurative mark gave the misleading impression that the website was affiliated with, or approved by, the Complainant,” and accordingly this did not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services). The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant and the famous PRESERVISION mark at the time of registration. Given Complainant’s extensive use and promotion of the PRESERVISION mark, trademark registrations incorporating the PRESERVISION mark, and Complainant’s ownership and use of domain names incorporating the PRESERVISION mark, including <preservision.com>, it is not plausible that Respondent could have been unaware of Complainant and the PRESERVISION mark at the time of registration. Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant is further confirmed by the content of Respondent’s copycat website, which advertised Complainant’s PRESERVISION-branded eye vitamins and featured images copied from Complainant’s website at the domain name <preservision.com>. In Dyson Technology Limited v. Edenilson Rodriguez, WIPO Case No. D2018-2646, the Panel noted that respondent’s website purported to sell the complainant’s products and included material copied from the complainant’s website, and that the respondent’s registration of the domains with awareness of the complainant and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounted to registration in bad faith). Additionally, in the case of BAA plc, Aberdeen Airport Limited v. Mr. H. Hashimi, WIPO Case No. D2004-0717, the Panel noted that although actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of registration in itself is sufficient to constitute bad faith, the respondent’s use of the domain name <aberdeenairport.com> to direct to the respondent’s own website demonstrated more than mere knowledge of the complainant’s mark, but a clear intention to misleadingly direct Internet users. In view of the above, Respondent clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent is in default and did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 4 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark 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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Moreover, the Top-Level Domain “.website” is to be disregarded for confusing similarity assessment purposes. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed as applicable to this case: a copycat site, passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds 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 Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, as envisaged in paragraph (4)(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed a copycat site, passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. As regards the current passive holding, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of Complainant’s trademark, the composition and prior use of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. page 5 Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element 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 <preservision.website> be transferred to Complainant. /Clark W. Lackert/ Clark W. Lackert Sole Panelist Date: March 10, 2026

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