Cosequin.site

The timeline behind cosequin.site

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. Zhai Guo Rui Claim Number: FA2509002178447 PARTIES Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Zhai Guo Rui ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cosequin.site> ('the Domain Name'), registered with DNSPod, 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 22, 2025; Forum received payment on September 22, 2025. On September 24, 2025, DNSPod, Inc.; confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cosequin.site> Domain Name is registered with DNSPod, Inc.; and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc.; has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 September 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 16, 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@cosequin.site. Also on September 26, 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 October 17, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 THE PROCEEDING Bearing in mind that the Domain Name points to a commercial site in English, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel decides that the proceedings should be in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: Complainant is the owner of the mark COSEQUIN registered, inter alia, in the USA for veterinary supplements since 1993. The Domain Name registered in 2025 is identical to the Complainant's prior mark merely adding the gTLD .site. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name pointed to a web site impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead and copying material from the Complainant's site to purport to offer the Complainant's goods. This is not a bona fide offering of services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. It is registration and use in fraudulent bad faith confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP relating to other marks of the Complainant showing a pattern of bad faith activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the mark COSEQUIN registered, inter alia, in the USA for veterinary supplements since 1993. The Domain Name registered in 2025 pointed to a web site impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead and copying material from the Complainant's site to purport to offer the Complainant's goods. The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP relating to other marks of the Complainant. 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's COSEQUIN mark (which is registered in USA for veterinary supplements since 1993) and the gTLD .site. The gTLD .site does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's registered mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be non commercial legitimate fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead to purport to offer the Complainant's products to suggest that it was a site operated by or authorised by the Complainant when it was not. The Panel finds this use was deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believe it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offered products under the Complainant's mark in its logo form used as a masthead to represent falsely that the site attached to the Domain Name was an official site of the Complainant. The use of the Complainant's logo shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). Further, the Respondent has been the subject of a number of adverse decisions under the UDRP evidencing a pattern of bad faith activity. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv). 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 <cosequin.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: October 17, 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.