Nutramaxvets.com

The timeline behind nutramaxvets.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 Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. lihai hui Claim Number: FA2502002140164 PARTIES Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is lihai hui ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nutramaxvets.com>, registered with Dynadot5706 Llc. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2025; Forum received payment on February 13, 2025. On February 16, 2025, Dynadot5706 Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot5706 Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot5706 Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot5706 Llc 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 February 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 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@nutramaxvets.com. Also on February 17, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant, Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., offers dietary supplements for humans and pets. Complainant has rights in the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <nutramaxvets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark as it merely adds the suggestive term "vets" (Complainant's products are sold in part via vet offices) to the dominant portion of Complainant's trademark and concludes with the confusingly similar analysis irrelevant ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead holds the domain name passively. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Nutramax, nor has it at any time received from Nutramax a license or consent, express or implied, to use any of the Complainant's marks in a domain name or in any other manner. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks in the at-issue domain name and Respondent, which does not refer to itself as Nutramax in the WHOIS record for the domain name, does not appear to have any legitimate rights in NUTRAMAX as a trademark, service mark, or trade name. NUTRAMAX has no meaning other than as a coined term owned by Complainant. It therefore may be presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <nutramaxvets.com> as a domain name. Respondent registered and uses the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name in bad faith. There is no plausible good-faith reason for Respondent to have registered <nutramaxvets.com> other than to trade on the consumer recognition and goodwill of the Complainant's marks. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Registrant's registration of the domain name to passively hold it is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent selected the at-issue domain name to unfairly benefit from consumer confusion from internet users who are attempting to access Complainant's actual website at the nearly identical domain name <nutramaxlabs.com>. Such conduct is an example of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES trademark. Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO registration of NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES is sufficient to established Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.") The at-issue domain name contains the dominant portion of Complainant's NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES trademark, followed by the suggestive term "vets," a reference to one of Complainant's product distribution channels, with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's <nutramaxvets.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from such trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <nutramaxvets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.") Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name indicates "lihai hui" as the domain name's registrant and there is no evidence before the Panel that otherwise indicates Respondent is commonly known by the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed "Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't" as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute) Browsing to <nutramaxvets.com> returns a page displaying a system error message stating that "This site can't be reached" and lacking any substantive content. Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).") Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <nutramaxvets.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). As mentioned above, Respondent fails to make active use of the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name as the domain name fails to address any substantive content. Respondent's passive holding of <nutramaxvets.com> shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <nutramaxvets.com> per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.") Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its NUTRAMAX dominant mark when it registered <nutramaxvets.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant and its trademark is evident because of the mark's notoriety and because Respondent incorporated the suggestive term "vets" into the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its NUTRAMAX based trademarks further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name) DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nutramaxvets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 12, 2025 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.