Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2308002056287
Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), British Virgin Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <beingnutramax.site>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2023; Forum received payment on August 7, 2023.
On August 8, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beingnutramax.site> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 2023 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@beingnutramax.site. Also on August 10, 2023, 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 31, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., offers dietary supplements for humans and pets.
Complainant has rights in the NUTRAMAX mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <beingnutramax.site> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NUTRAMAX mark as it incorporates the mark while adding the term “being” and adding the “.site” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <beingnutramax.site> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its NUTRAMAX mark in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but uses the domain name to host pay-per-click links including links to Complainant’s competitors.
Respondent registered and uses the <beingnutramax.site> domain name in bad faith. Respondent acts in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and redirects NUTRAMAX traffic to Respondent’s pay-per-click website. There is no plausible good faith reason for Respondent to have registered the at-issue domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the NUTRAMAX trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the NUTRAMAX trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host pay-per-click links.
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”).
The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of NUTRAMAX is sufficient to established Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s NUTRAMAX trademark, prefixed with the term “being,” and with all followed by the “.site” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <beingnutramax.site> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <beingnutramax.site> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NUTRAMAX mark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue 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 <beingnutramax.site> reveals that Respondent “Milen Radumilo” is <beingnutramax.site>’s registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <beingnutramax.site> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host pay-per-click links. Using the domain name in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. GEORGE WASHERE, FA 1785311 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s confusingly similar <esecuretdbank.com> domain name references a website displaying links to competing third parties as well as links to Complainant and various unrelated third parties. Using the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the <beingnutramax.site> domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.
First, Respondent uses <beingnutramax.site> to address a webpage featuring pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-parties including links to Complainant’s competition. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA 1549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links); see also, Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NUTRAMAX mark when it registered <beingnutramax.site> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark. Respondent’s registration of <beingnutramax.site> with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in NUTRAMAX further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <beingnutramax.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: September 1, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page