DECISION

 

Elanco Animal Health GmbH and Elanco US Inc. v. Adriel Gefter

Claim Number: FA2506002163126

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Elanco Animal Health GmbH and Elanco US Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Adriel Gefter ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <serestotasma.org>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2025; Forum received payment on June 27, 2025.

 

On July 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serestotasma.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@serestotasma.org. Also on July 7, 2025, 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 July 29, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In this proceeding there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Complainants Elanco US Inc. and Elanco Animal Health GmbH are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Elanco Animal Health Inc. together owning rights in all trademarks relevant to the instant dispute. Additionally, there is no objection by Respondent to the named Complainants proceeding together as if one. The Panel therefore finds that the two nominal complainants (herein referred to collectively as Complainant) have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated as if a single entity. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names); see also, Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004) (finding a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainants Elanco Animal Health GmbH and Elanco US Inc. together are a global pharmaceutical company that develops and sells products and services for animal health. The company has its headquarters in Germany (Leverkusen). Elanco Animal Health GmbH is the owner of the SERESTO mark.

 

Complainant offers market-leading pet care products, which include Seresto, K9 Advantix II, Advantage II, Advantage Multi, Advantage Home & Yard, Quellin, and Synovi. SERESTO is an insecticide designed to help protect pets from fleas and ticks that can negatively impact a pet's quality of life and may cause dangerous diseases. Pet owners rely on SERESTO as a valued, effective and convenient vet-recommended solution against fleas and ticks. SERESTO has been thoroughly evaluated by regulators – including the U.S. EPA – in 80 countries all over the world, and Complainant owns associated trademark registrations for SERESTO in many of these countries.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SERESTO mark. Complainant and its subsidiaries own registrations for SERESTO in numerous jurisdictions. The at-issue domain name incorporates the SERESTO mark in its entirety, adding the term 'tasma' (meaning 'collar' in Turkish) and ".ORG" gTLD. Adding a generic or descriptive term or a geographical term and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). When comparing a disputed domain name to the complainant's mark, the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portions of the marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, and there is no evidence that at the time Respondent registered the domain name it had trademark or intellectual property rights in either. Complainant is not affiliated with Respondent. Moreover, Complainant has not licensed the mark SERESTO to Respondent, and Complainant has not granted Respondent any right, authorization, or permission to use Complainant's SERESTO mark in a domain name or in any other capacity. Respondent's lack of authorization to use the SERESTO trademark supports Complainant's prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights in <serestotasma.org>.

 

Respondent fails to use <serestotasma.org> for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent implies a connection with Complainant. From the resolving website at <serestotasma.org>, the Respondent is prominently using the SERESTO trademark in the domain name and on the website and is claiming to sell flea and tick collars and pest control preparations that contain Complainant's SERESTO, ELANCO and ADVANTAGE trademarks. The website suggests a false association with Complainant and claims to offer products bearing Complainant's marks and images. Such use is evidence that the Respondent is defrauding customers into believing that Respondent's website is operated or authorized by Complainant and that the goods being sold on Respondent's website are authentic by creating a strong impression of false affiliation with the Complainant. Respondent's sale of the products bearing Complainant's marks without the consent of Complainant and using the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names under Policy 4(c)(iii). Respondent's <serestotasma.org> website does not accurately state, in a prominent position on the website, the relationship (or lack of) between Respondent and Complainant. Respondent has set up the at-issue domain name to enable delivery of communication emails as MX records have been set up. Thus, Respondent can use the domain name to engage in "phishing" as an effort to defraud Complainant's customers, vendors, and financial institutions, which would not constitute a legitimate right or interest of Respondent in the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the domain name significantly later than Complainant's first use in commerce of SERESTO.

 

The at-issue domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the Respondent's <serestotasma.org> website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website. Respondent is commercially gaining from the sales of flea and tick collars or from user' personal data obtained on the website that resolves from the at-issue domain name. Because Respondent has no license or any other right to sell products bearing the Complainant's trademarks, Respondent's use of the SERESTO trademark in the at-issue domain name and on the associated website, is under deceptive and false pretenses of association or affiliation with Complainant. Respondent's commercial gain from the sale of the product is evidence of Respondent's registration and use of the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv). Respondent is diverting internet customers from Complainant's website to Respondent's website that resolves from the at-issue domain name through the confusion caused by the similarity between the SERESTO mark and the <serestotasma.org> domain name. Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting confused customers to Respondent's website where they would mistakenly think they were accessing Complainant's official channels and/or buying Complainant's products. Respondent's disruption of Complainant's business by operating a website and allegedly selling versions of Complainant's products should compel the Panel to find that Respondent has registered and used <serestotasma.org> in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii). Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks before it registered <serestotasma.org> which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent's use of a privacy service to its identity may contribute to a finding of bad faith registration and use. Finally, Respondent has been involved in previous UDRP decisions. Prior adverse UDRP cases against a respondent may be evidence of a pattern of bad faith per Policy 4(b)(ii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the SERESTO trademarks.

 

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 SERESTO.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that purports to offer Complainant's products for sale.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's trademark registration for SERESTO is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <serestotasma.org> domain name consists of Complainant's SERESTO's trademark, followed by the suggestive term "tasma" (meaning "collar" in Turkish), with all followed by the ".org" top level domain. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SERESTO trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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).

 

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 <serestotasma.org> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Adriel Gefter" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <serestotasma.org> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <serestotasma.org> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

 

Respondent uses <serestotasma.org> to address a website that displays Complainant's trademarks, logo, and images, and purports to sell unauthorized products under Complainant's mark. The website appears as if it might be Complainant's genuine website or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <serestotasma.org>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <serestotasma.org> domain name to address a website bearing Complainant's trademark that purports to offer Complainant's products for sale. Using the confusingly similar <serestotasma.org> domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and falsely indicates that there is some relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent exploits the confusion it creates to divert internet users seeking Complainant's genuine products to Respondent's bogus website. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website to sell the complainant's products ).

 

Complainant also shows that Respondent has suffered at least one other prior adverse UDRP decision. Indeed, one such decision also concerns Complainant's SERESTO trademark and a domain name having the same second level as the at-issue domain name.  See i.e. Elanco Animal Health GmbH and Elanco US Inc. v. Adriel Gefter, FA2410002120694 (Forum Nov. 14, 2024) (transferring <serestotasma.com> to Complainant). Respondent's brazen conduct exhibits a pattern of cybersquatting that is indicative of Respondent's bad faith in the instant case pursuant to 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 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 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)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SERESTO trademark when it registered <serestotasma.org> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evidenced from the notoriety of Complainant's SERESTO mark, from Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's branded products for sale, and from Respondent's prior UDRP dispute concerning Complainant and its SERESTO trademark. Respondent's registration and use of <serestotasma.org> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in SERESTO further shows Respondent's bad faith 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).

 

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 <serestotasma.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2025