Avmocol.com

The timeline behind avmocol.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. CIERRA JUNE Claim Number: FA2601002199028 PARTIES Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is CIERRA JUNE ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <avmocol.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2026; Forum received payment on January 9, 2026. On January 12, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <avmocol.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026 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@avmocol.com. Also on January 21, 2026, 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 February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 The Complainant is a corporation based in South Carolina, that since 1992 has manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold a range of high-quality pet and human supplements throughout the United States and internationally. Complainant's health supplement products are widely regarded as being among the best in the nutritional supplement industry. One of Complainant's, since 2014 top selling supplements, is AVMACOL, which is a sulforaphane broccoli supplement for humans. The AVMACOL trademark is registered years before Respondent registered the Domain Name. Complainant's domain name <avmacol.com> resolves to a website prominently displaying the AVMACOL mark. As a result of Complainants substantial promotion and marketing efforts and extensive use of its AVMACOL mark, this trademark is recognized by the consuming public as being associated with Complainant alone and represents valuable goodwill owned by Complainant. Respondent registered the Domain Name on January 7, 2026, and is reverted to a website that, upon information and belief is being used to promote and sell counterfeit Avmacol products. On Respondent's website at the Domain Name, consumers are prompted to purchase products directly from the website from which, upon information and belief, Registrant receives money and then fails to ship the purchased product or ships counterfeit Avmacol products, putting the health and safety of humans at risk and harming Complainant's goodwill and reputation in the marketplace. Further, certain pages of the website at the Domain Name ask consumers to provide personal contact and credit card information that could give Respondent access to the confidential information of Complainant's customers. Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name is a blatant attempt to benefit from the goodwill and fame associated with the AVMACOL mark to deceive consumers. Upon information and belief, Respondent has a history of such problematic behavior and has been registering similar domains including <avmacols.com>, <avmacolsus.com>, <avmacol.site>, <avmacolaus.com>, <avmacoli.store>, <avmacorl.shop>, and <avmacorl.com>, and uploading this same, or a similar, scam Avmacol webpage to these domains in an attempt to distribute counterfeit products. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registration: No. 4,514,965 AVMACOL (word), registered on April 15, 2014 for goods in Intl Class 5. The disputed domain name <avmocol.com> was registered on January 7, 2026. 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 Complainant claims rights to the AVMACOL trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the AVMACOL trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,514,965, registered on April 15, 2014). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AVMACOL trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that <avmocol.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark AVMACOL, as the Domain Name incorporates the AVMACOL mark with only the second letter "a" replaced with an "o", a difference that is barely recognizable when typed lowercase in a domain, and the addition of the gTLD ".com." The Panel agrees with Complainant's conclusion, and find that Respondent's <avmocol.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AVMACOL trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <avmocol.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the AVMACOL trademark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark 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 information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "CIERRA JUNE" and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the AVMACOL trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). In addition, the Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <avmocol.com> domain name to redirect users to Respondent's competing website. Use of a disputed domain name to offer competing products and services may not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). The Panel noted that the main part of Respondent's website associated with the disputed domain name is more or less a copy of Complainant's own website. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the <avmocol.com> domain name to offer competing or false goods is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <avmocol.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the content thereon. Bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant's AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Here, Complainant claims that Respondent created and is using the disputed domain name merely to mimic Complainant's website in a clear attempt to confuse consumers. The Panel agree with Complainant and find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <avmocol.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: February 25, 2026 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.