Zeotis.com

The timeline behind zeotis.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.

DECISION Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Products LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd Claim Number: FA1504001613565 PARTIES Complainant is Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Products LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Laura J. Winston of Kim Winston LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd (“Respondent”), Bermuda. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <zeotis.com>, registered with TUCOWS, INC.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 8, 2015; the Forum received payment on April 8, 2015. On April 08, 2015, TUCOWS, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <zeotis.com> domain name is registered with TUCOWS, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TUCOWS, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TUCOWS, INC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On April 9, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@zeotis.com. Also on April 9, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 12, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant has registered the ZOETIS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,400,976, registered Sept. 10, 2013). The mark is used on or in connection with providing information and advice in the field of animal health and veterinary medicine. The <zeotis.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark because the domain name simply contains transposed letters and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known as the domain name, and Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant. Further, Respondent has failed to make active use of the domain name, nor has Respondent shown any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Products LLC, has rights in the ZOETIS mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,400,976, registered Sept. 10, 2013). The mark is used on or in connection with providing information and advice in the field of animal health and veterinary medicine. Respondent, VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, registered the <zeotis.com> domain name on March 9, 2015. Respondent has failed to make active use of the domain name. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the ZOETIS mark through registration with the USPTO. (e.g., Reg. No. 4,400,976, registered Sept. 10, 2013). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). The <zeotis.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ZOETIS mark because the domain name simply contains transposed letters and adds the gTLD “.com.” Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the ZOETIS mark. The WHOIS information lists “VistaPrint Technologies Ltd” as the registrant of the <zeotis.com> domain name. See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that when the respondent declares its intent to develop a website, “[Policy ¶] 4(c)(i) requires Respondent to show 1) ‘demonstrable’ evidence of such preparations to use the domain name, and 2) that such preparations were undertaken ‘before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute’”). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has failed to make active use of the <zeotis.com> domain name. Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith. Respondent has been the respondent in adverse decisions. See Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Vista Print Technologies LTD; and Designs Around You, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies LTD. Such decisions against Respondent show bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Respondent has engaged in typosquatting based on the fact that the <zeotis.com> domain name is identical to the ZOETIS mark except for the transposed letters. Respondent’s typosquatting is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zeotis.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: May 26, 2015 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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