Pharmanutra.online

The timeline behind pharmanutra.online

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 Pharmanutra S.P.A. v. FELIX CARRILLO Case No. D2026-2655 1. The Parties The Complainant is Pharmanutra S.P.A., Italy, represented by Hoffmann Eitle S.R.L., Italy. The Respondent is FELIX CARRILLO, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pharmanutra.online> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2026. On June 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 18, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 19, 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 June 19, 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 July 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2026. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 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 is an Italian company established in Pisa, Italy, in December 2003. It specializes in the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and nutritional sectors. The Complainant states that it operates in more than 85 countries through a network of distributors, wholesalers, and sales representatives. The Complainant owns Italian trademark registration No. 0001457591 for PHARMANUTRA (word mark), registered on July 28, 2011. It also operates the domain name <pharmanutra.it>, registered on February 16, 2004. The disputed domain name was registered on May 13, 2026. The disputed domain name also resolved to a webpage displaying general links, including links relating to pharmacies and medical services. The contact page also bore the notice “© 2026 resultsfastfind.com. All rights reserved”. Further, third-party suppliers contacted the Complainant regarding suspicious purchase enquiries sent from the email address “[...] @pharmanutra.online”. The emails purported to originate from the Complainant’s Managing Director, and reproduced the Complainant’s corporate name, address, telephone number, VAT and registration details, company seal, signatures, and trade marks. An Abuse Report was sent by the Complainant’s representatives to the Registrar on May 19, 2026. Additionally, a police report was filed by the Complainant on May 21, 2026. 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: (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s PHARMANUTRA trade mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” is a technical requirement of registration and may be disregarded for the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the PHARMANUTRA trade mark, there is no business relationship or affiliation between the Parties, and the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It was registered long after the Complainant acquired rights in its PHARMANUTRA trade mark, such that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights when he registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a manner intended to create confusion, mislead Internet users and attract them for commercial gain by creating a false association with the Complainant and its pharmaceutical and nutraceutical business. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 trademark 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 the PHARMANUTRA trade 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. The gTLD “.online” is a standard technical requirement for domain names and is disregarded for the purposes of the confusing-similarity analysis. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel therefore 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. Having reviewed the available record, 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 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain name resolved to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links, such as links to “pharmacy prescription” and “buy prescriptions online”. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Further, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, including fraudulent email impersonation or phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Here, the disputed domain name was used for email communications impersonating the Complainant’s Managing Director. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 Complainant’s PHARMANUTRA trade mark was registered and used long before the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reproduces the PHARMANUTRA trade mark in its entirety. The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and deliberately targeted its trade mark when registering the disputed domain name. Given the Complainant’s activities and reputation in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sector and the manner of use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent intended to create the false impression that the disputed domain name and the associated website were connected with, sponsored by or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant. Further, the emails sent using the disputed domain name were calculated to create the false impression that they had been sent by the Complainant’s Managing Director. The Respondent thereby sought to induce third-party suppliers to provide quotations or enter into commercial transactions. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, including fraudulent email impersonation or phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the identity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s PHARMANUTRA trade mark, the Respondent’s evident knowledge of the Complainant, and the use of the disputed domain name to display pay-per-click links in the Complainant’s sector of activity and for fraudulent email impersonation. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the 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 <pharmanutra.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Francine Tan/ Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: August 5, 2026

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