Serestofleacollar.com

The timeline behind serestofleacollar.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 Elanco Animal Health GmbH v. Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi Claim Number: FA2607002230482 PARTIES Complainant is Elanco Animal Health GmbH ("Complainant"), represented by Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <serestofleacollar.com> (the "Domain"), registered with Tucows Domains 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. Nick J. Gardner as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2026; Forum received payment on July 1, 2026. On July 2, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serestofleacollar.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 July 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@serestofleacollar.com. Also on July 14, 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 August 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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 be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Elanco Animal Health GmbH, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elanco Animal Health Inc., a global animal health company founded in 1954 and headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: ELAN). Elanco Animal Health Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Complainant, are leaders in farm animal and pet health, treating and preventing disease in more than 90 countries. Complainant markets flea and tick collar products for pets under the SERESTO mark (the "SERESTO Mark"), and has used the SERESTO Mark in commerce since at least January 21, 2013. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the SERESTO Mark, including: United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 4,317,500 (insecticides, Class 5), registered April 9, 2013; USPTO Registration No. 7,765,311 (anti-flea and tick collars for pets, Class 5), registered April 22, 2025; European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") Registration No. 009357567 (veterinary preparations, namely insecticides), registered February 18, 2011; EUIPO Registration No. 018249244 (SERESTO logo, veterinary preparations), registered September 29, 2020; and World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") Madrid System International Registration No. 1063282 (insecticides), registered December 6, 2010, designating numerous jurisdictions including China. By virtue of this longstanding and continuous use and registration, the SERESTO Mark is well known to and widely recognized by consumers in the pet health sector. The Domain was registered on June 28, 2024, long after Complainant's rights in the SERESTO Mark arose. The Domain incorporates the SERESTO Mark in its entirety together with the descriptive terms "flea" and "collar." The Domain resolves to a website that prominently displays the SERESTO Mark and images of purported SERESTO products, with product packaging nearly identical to Complainant's authentic packaging, and without any accurate or prominent disclaimer of the lack of affiliation with Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain, has not been authorized by Complainant to use the SERESTO Mark in any manner, and is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant further contends that the address provided by Respondent in the WHOIS record - a Los Angeles, California address bearing the notation "Longguangjiuzuan," which is in fact a business and residential complex located in Shenzhen, China - is false or incomplete, and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with the SERESTO Mark for commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant's business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following facts established by the evidence in the record: 1. Complainant owns valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the SERESTO Mark, including USPTO Registration No. 4,317,500, registered April 9, 2013, and has used the SERESTO Mark in commerce since at least January 21, 2013 in connection with flea and tick collar products for pets. 2. Complainant's rights in the SERESTO Mark predate the registration of the Domain. 3. The Domain was registered on June 28, 2024, and incorporates the SERESTO Mark in its entirety together with the descriptive terms "flea" and "collar." 4. The Domain resolves to a website that prominently displays the SERESTO Mark and images of purported SERESTO products, using packaging nearly identical to Complainant's authentic packaging, without any accurate and prominent disclaimer of non-affiliation with Complainant. 5. Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use the SERESTO Mark in any manner, and is not commonly known by the Domain. 6. Respondent's WHOIS-listed address contains information that is false, incomplete, or misleading. 7. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, offering no explanation for its choice of Domain or its use of Complainant's mark and website content. 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 3.1 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 established rights in the SERESTO mark through its extensive use since 2013 and its numerous trademark registrations worldwide. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the SERESTO mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy." The Domain incorporates Complainant's entire SERESTO mark followed by "flea" and "collar" which are descriptive terms and which do not distinguish the Domain from Complainant's mark. See 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."). The addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), after which the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use the SERESTO mark and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS record identifies Respondent as " Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi" a name bearing no resemblance to the Domain. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or that Respondent was licensed or authorized to use the SERESTO mark. Complainant has thereby established a prima facie case, and the burden of production shifts to Respondent. Respondent has failed to file a Response or otherwise rebut Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel draws such adverse inferences from Respondent's default as it considers appropriate. See Rule 14(b); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-1398. The evidence in the record confirms that no ground for legitimate interest exists. The use of the Domain to host a website that fraudulently replicates Complainants' legitimate website - deploying Complainants' marks, logos, product images, and promotional materials without authorization, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The use of a confusingly similar domain name, to attract traffic to a website which masquerades as being that of the Complainant cannot establish a legitimate interest. See Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain. The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location." The use of the Domain to resolve to a website which purports to be that of the Complainant demonstrates bad faith use. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that such activity evidences bad faith registration and use, See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 1930066 (Forum Feb. 15, 2021) ("[T]he Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS Mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant's products offered for sale, using Complainant's trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings.... Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the Domain in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <serestofleacollar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nick J. Gardner, Panelist Dated: August 9, 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.