Petmatepet.com

The timeline behind petmatepet.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 Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a Petmate v. lu wanglong Claim Number: FA2507002164086 PARTIES Complainant is Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a Petmate ("Complainant"), represented by Morgan T. Nickerson of K&L Gates LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is lu wanglong ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <petmatepet.com>, registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 3, 2025; Forum received payment on July 3, 2025. On July 9, 2025, Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <petmatepet.com> domain name is registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd 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 July 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 30, 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@petmatepet.com. Also on July 10, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On July 31, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is written in Chinese, thereby initially making this the language of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 11(a). However, Complainant requests that this Panel exercise its discretion, under Rules 10(b) and (c) and determine that English be the language of the proceedings. In support of its request, Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that appears entirely in English, contains material copied from Complainant's English-language website, and offers goods for sale in US Dollars. The Panel notes Complainant's submission of screenshots of Respondent's website and these do support the above-mentioned assertions. Finally, Forum has provided notice of these proceedings to the Respondent in both Chinese and English, yet the Respondent has not provided a Response or made any other submission in this case. In Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, D2008-1191 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2008) the Panel held that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English". In light of the fact that Respondent's website displays content entirely in English and taking into account its default in this case and the delay and further expense that would be caused from requiring the Complainant to submit documents in Chinese, the Panel determines that the remainder of these proceedings may be conducted in English without prejudice to the Respondent. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides pet products and accessories through a nationwide network of exclusive and authorized online dealers. It owns multiple valid and existing trademark registrations for the trademark PETMATE including but not limited to United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3404089 dated April 1, 2008 and Reg. No. 4905523 dated February 23, 2016. It also uses the domain name <petmate.com> as the address for its website at which consumers can obtain information regarding Complainant and its product offerings and purchase Petmate products. The <petmatepet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the PETMATE mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only the generic word "pet" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a website that seeks to deceive customers as to its origin and offers heavily-discounted unauthorized product listing or possibly counterfeit products. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and the above-mentioned website activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Despite the registration agreement of the disputed domain name being in the Chinese language, Respondent has the ability to understand the English language and so these proceedings may take place in such language; - Complainant owns trademark rights to its PETMATE mark and the <petmatepet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it hosts a website that passes itself off as originating with Complainant; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as Complainant and deceives customers, for commercial gain, based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark 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 Complainant asserts rights in the PETMATE mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots of its registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <petmatepet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the PETMATE mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds the term "pet" and the ".com" TLD. Where the dominant portion of a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of generic or descriptive terms typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under 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.") As the entire PETMATE mark is clearly discernable in the <petmatepet.com> domain name, and only the generic term "pet" and the ".com" TLD are added to the mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <petmatepet.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's PETMATE mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 record for the <petmatepet.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "lu wanglong". Further, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") In addition, Complainant specifically states that "Respondent is not authorized to sell Petmate products." Respondent has not filed a Response in this case or made any other submission to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it asserts that the <petmatepet.com> domain name resolves to a website that fraudulently impersonates Complainant and deceives the public. Such activity has been held to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Subway IP LLC v. subways pvt ltd / business development, FA 2069330 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's Indian subsidiary...") In support of its contentions Complainant provides screenshots of the <petmatepet.com> website which prominently features the term PETMATE logo at the top, accompanied by the message "Free Shipping On All Orders Over $50.00." Below an image of a pet carrier and a dog, appear further images of various pet toys, feeders, carriers, and other accessories. Below each appears one price in a strike-through grey font followed by a significantly lower price in black font. Complainant also notes that some of these images have been copied from the <petmate.com> website and it provides at least one example to support its assertion. Finally, the bottom of Respondent's page displays the footers "Shop at Petmate and enjoy a wide range of pet care solutions that bring joy and comfort to your pets' lives" and "©2025 Petmate". In particular, Complainant asserts that the deeply discounted prices suggests that Respondent is perhaps selling counterfeit goods. Finally, the site displays no message stating that it does not originate from Complainant and offers no other indication that it has no relationship with Complainant thus failing a critical element of the well-known Oki Data test for distributors. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001). Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent creates a false impression that its site is operated by Complaint and that it is deceiving potential customers. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under either Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its PETMATE mark. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.") Complainant asserts that "Respondent had actual knowledge of Petmate's rights in and to the Petmate Mark, as evidenced by the fact that Respondent's Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website exclusively selling Petmate products and copying Petmate's product images." Submitted into evidence are screenshots from Respondent's website which, as noted above, displays the PETMATE graphic logo and numerous images of Complainant's products. The Panel finds that the <petmatepet.com> website passing itself off as Complainant supports the conclusion that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.1 Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <petmatepet.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website.") The Panel references the screenshots of the site resolving from the <petmatepet.com> domain name which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's abundant use of the PETMATE mark and logo as well as many images of Complainant's pet-related products supposedly offered for sale at deeply discounted prices. This gives the clear impression that Respondent's website originates with Complainant and is improperly seeking commercial gain based on confusion with its mark. Based on a strong preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the PETMATE mark and is seeking to impersonate Complainant and perhaps sell counterfeit products. As such, the Panel finds firm ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus under ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <petmatepet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: August 4, 2025 [1] Complainant further asserts that "the Petmate Mark is famous and well-known" though it provides no evidence to support this claim apart from a few screenshots from its current <petmate.com> website. The Panel is not in a position to consider this unsupported claim of trademark notoriety. 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.