Cosamin.site

The timeline behind cosamin.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: FA2509002178449 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 <cosamin.site>, registered with DNSPod, 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. James Bridgeman SC 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 <cosamin.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@cosamin.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 James Bridgeman SC 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 "Rule" or "Rules" as appropriate) "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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Complainant requests that the language of this proceeding be English pursuant to Rule 11(a) arguing that:- Respondent is operating a sophisticated website to which the disputed domain name resolves that is entirely in, generally well-written, English that purports to offer Complainant's own COSAMIN branded products for sale to consumers in the United States priced in US dollars. Respondent is therefore plainly conversant in English and engaging in a business enterprise targeting consumers in the United States. Further, the disputed domain name is comprised of the COSAMIN trademark with the addition of the English generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.site>. In such circumstances Complainant submits that it would be unfair if the language of the proceedings were to be the language of the Registration Agreement viz. Chinese. In such circumstances Complainant would be put to substantial additional time and expense, converting its Complaint to Chinese, a language in which Complainant is not proficient, in order to pursue its claim under the Policy. Complainant adds that in similar circumstances panels have previously allowed complaints to proceed in the English language. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. jun shi, FA 2164746 (Forum Aug. 8, 2025) (finding English to be the proper language when "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"); Hot Topic, Inc. v. Xiao Liu, FA 1877504 (Forum Jan. 30, 2020) (finding English the proper language of the proceeding when the website is written in English and the domain name itself combines the trademark with an English language word); Oregon Tool, Inc. v. jie zhu, FA 2150779 (Forum May 16, 2025) (finding English to be the appropriate language for the proceeding when the domain name is written in English, it targets an English-language U.S.-based firm, and the website to which the domain name resolves is written exclusively in English). Having considered Complainant's application, and noting that the record shows that notwithstanding that Respondent has been served with notice of this proceeding by Forum on September 26, 2025 in both English and Chinese; that no Response has been received; that the evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website, the entire content of which is in the English language, and purports to target consumers in the United States, the Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent is proficient in the English language. Therefore, having regard to, and exercising its discretion pursuant to Rule 11(a), and in the interests of fairness to both Parties and to progress this proceeding with appropriate expedition and cost savings, the Panel finds that the language of this proceeding is appropriately English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, claims rights in the COSAMIN trademark established by its ownership of the United States registered trademark described below and extensive use of the mark in its business of producing food supplements. Complainant submits that it has been actively engaged in the development, production, and distribution of food supplements since at least 1992. Among its portfolio of products is COSAMIN, a joint health supplement for humans. Complainant submits that since it was established it has grown to build a reputation for excellence in the supplement industry and its COSAMIN brand, in particular, has become synonymous with joint health support. Complainant adda that it has invested millions of dollars in research, development, marketing, and advertising to promote COSAMIN. The company's website at <www.cosamin.com>, prominently features the COSAMIN mark and serves as a central hub for product information and consumer education. Although Complainant does not sell COSAMIN directly through its website, it directs consumers to authorized retailers to ensure the purchase of genuine products, resulting in widespread recognition of the COSAMIN mark. Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <cosamin.site>, is identical to Complainant's COSAMIN trademark. It incorporates the exact COSAMIN mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the gTLD extension <.site>. Complainant argues that it is well-established in decisions of panelists established under the Policy that the addition of a gTLD does not distinguish a domain name at issue from a trademark. See for example Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Zhang Xing Man, FA 2171095 (Forum Sept. 9, 2025) (holding that the gTLD extension <.site> does not serve to distinguish the domain name at issue from the complainant's mark). Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is virtually indistinguishable from Complainant's own legitimate domain name <cosamin.com>, and consumers encountering Respondent's website at <www.cosamin.site> are likely to believe it is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. Furthermore Complainant argues that confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves slavishly copies the content and design of Complainant's official website at <www.cosamin.com>. Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · upon information and belief, Respondent has never used, nor even made preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services, nor has it made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; · there is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights in COSAMIN; · Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COSAMIN mark; · Respondent does not refer to itself as COSAMIN in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name; · Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant; · the registration and use of the disputed domain name is a deliberate attempt to exploit Complainant's goodwill and mislead consumers by misleading Internet users into visiting Respondent's website when they are looking for Complainant's website; · a screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website copying Complainant's legitimate website for the COSAMIN brand; · the exhibited website shows that Respondent is purporting to offer Complainant's COSAMIN products for sale; · Respondent has therefore been using the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scam attempting to pass off a website as Complainant's official website for COSAMIN products; · Respondent's actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor do they represent legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing: Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights in COSAMIN. As shown in the exhibited screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that has slavishly copied Complainant's legitimate website at <www.cosamin.com>. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in this manner is intended to mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine COSAMIN products. This deception constitutes phishing and distribution of counterfeit goods. Respondent has a history of registering domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks. Complainant has succeeded in complaints against Respondent under the Policy on a number of occasions including cases involving the AVMACOL and COSEQUIN trademarks. Specifically, Complainant's legitimate websites at <tryavmacol.com> and <avmacolsus.com> have been copied by Respondent using the domain names <avmacolaus.com>, and <cosequin.site>. In an annex to the Complaint Complainant has exhibited copies of the relevant websites and supporting documentation including the relevant WhoIs information from the mentioned domain names that were the subject of successful Complaints under the Policy. It is contended that where a respondent is found to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, such as through previous adverse findings against it in proceedings under the Policy, and has prevented a complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, panels have found bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding that, 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 to various complainants, this 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)). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a manufacturer of food supplements on which it uses the brand name COSAMIN for which it holds: · United States registered trademark COSAMIN, registration number 1,778,630, registered on the Principal Register on June 29, 1993 for goods in international class 5. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at <www.cosamin.com>. The disputed domain name <cosamin.site> was registered on September 19, 2025, and resolves to a website on which is a slavish copy of Complainant's said website at <www.cosamin.com>. There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name, and the Registrar's response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of this proceeding. The record shows that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering Complainant's trademarks in domain names and Complainant has brought successful complaints under the Policy against Respondent. 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 has provided convincing evidence that rights in the COSAMIN mark, established by its ownership of the United States trademark registration described above and use of the mark on its food supplement products including on its own official website at <www.cosamin.com>. The disputed domain name <cosamin.site> consists only of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the gTLD extension <.site>. It is well established gTLD extension <.site> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison. It does add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name, and would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <cosamin.site> is identical to the COSAMIN mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that slavishly copies Complainant's website. It purports to impersonate Complainant and is intended to target unsuspecting consumers by creating the impression that Respondent's website is owned by or endorsed by Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name does not create any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has been using the COSAMIN trademark since at least June 29, 1993, when its United States trademark was registered, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until September 19, 2025. The preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent was actually aware of Complainant's COSAMIN mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. The mark is distinctive, and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering Complainant's trademarks, in domain names as described in Complainant's submissions above. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the COSAMIN mark. Complainant has exhibited screen captures showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that slavishly copies Complainant's website, which shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is intended to impersonate Complainant. Respondent's website is clearly intended to create the false impression that it is hosted by, associated with, or authorized by Complainant which is not true. Such use of Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name is on the balance of probabilities intended to lure, confuse and misdirect Internet users to Respondent's website which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 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 <cosamin.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _______________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: October 20, 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.