Nutramaxi.com

The timeline behind nutramaxi.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Romulo Quintanilha Claim Number: FA2502002140340 PARTIES Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Romulo Quintanilha ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nutramaxi.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 15, 2025; Forum received payment on February 15, 2025. On February 17, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nutramaxi.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 18, 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@nutramaxi.com. Also on February 18, 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 Richard Hill 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 states that it is a United States company, and via affiliates, develops, markets and distributes high quality nutritional supplements, including supplements for humans and animals. Since at least 1992, Complainant and its affiliates have been using the NUTRAMAX marks, including NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, in connection with developing, marketing, and distributing branded supplements. Complainant is an industry leader in setting and adhering to strict standards for manufacturing and quality control in the field of supplements. Complainant and its affiliates offer a wide array of supplements for humans, dogs, cats and horses and these supplements support joint health, digestive health, skin, and coat health (for animals) and provide other helpful benefits. Complainant's supplements are widely regarded as the gold standard in the supplement industry and are highly recommended by veterinarians in promoting animal health. Complainant operates its website at <nutramaxlabs.com>. Complainant claims rights in the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark through its registration in the United States in 1999. The mark is well known. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark because it contains the dominant portion NUTRAMAX of the mark, merely adding a letter "i" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark in any way. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES dating back to 1999 and uses it to market nutritional supplements. The mark is well known. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name is not being used. 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 disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portion NUTRAMAX of Complainant's NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES mark and merely adds the letter "i" along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrants of the at-issue domain name as "Romulo Quintanilha". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent engages in typosquatting. According to 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), typosquatting consists of registering a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark. Here, the disputed domain name does not consist of a misspelling of Complainant's mark: it merely consists of a misspelling of the dominant portion of Complainant's mark. Thus the Panel finds that this allegation is unfounded and will not further discuss it. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put." In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith."). There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). 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 <nutramaxi.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 11, 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.