Serestodogcollar.com

The timeline behind serestodogcollar.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. Sergei Reva Claim Number: FA2607002232666 PARTIES Complainant is Elanco Animal Health GmbH ("Complainant"), represented by Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Sergei Reva ("Respondent"), Ukraine. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <serestodogcollar.com>, registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown. 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 14, 2026; Forum received payment on July 14, 2026. On July 17, 2026, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serestodogcollar.com> domain name is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown has verified that Respondent is bound by the TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown 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 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 11, 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@serestodogcollar.com. Also on July 22, 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 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 Complainant asserts trademark rights in SERESTO which it uses in connection with the sale of animal health products. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, the domain name points to a website which uses Complainant's trademark and promotes the sale of flea and tick collars for dogs via the Amazon platform. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant sells, amongst other things, flea and tick collars by reference to the trademark, SERESTO; 2. Complainant is the owner of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,317,500, registered on April 9, 2013, for the mark, SERESTO; and 3. the disputed domain name was registered on August 15, 2024, and resolves to a website that offers flea and tick collars for sale via a third party and under the same trademark and similar packaging to that used by Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of registration of the trademark SERESTO with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). Thereafter, the trademark merely adds the descriptive words, "dog" and "collar", to the trademark. The Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) finding that "[w]here a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."; Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("… the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.")). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)). The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Panel accepts Complainant's submission that Respondent has no authority or permission to use the trademark. The resolving website uses Complainant's trademark, offers the same goods for sale via the Amazon platform and generally mimics Complainant's website. Public confusion is inevitable and the Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made that Respondent has no right or interest in the domain name (see, for example, FC Online Marketing, Inc. v. Brett Ray, FA 1643100 (Forum Nov. 19, 2015) finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name "to market, for commercial gain, services similar to those of Complainant," was not bona fide or legitimate use; Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) ("In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant's mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.")). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged that onus and so finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The resolving webpage clearly exists for commercial gain via the Amazon affiliate sales programme. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <serestodogcollar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G Lyons, Panelist Dated: August 14, 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.