NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. v. Olga Yastreb

Claim Number: FA2508002170249

PARTIES

Complainant is Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jason J. Mazur of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Olga Yastreb ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thereddydog.com>, 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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2025; Forum received payment on August 7, 2025.

On August 8, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thereddydog.com> 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 August 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@thereddydog.com. Also on August 11, 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 September 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of pet products, supplies, accessories and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 1965.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for REDDY and has done so since at least 2018.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the REDDY trademark by its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 6434886, registered on July 27, 2021and several other trademarks for REDDY registered domestically and internationally (collectively "the REDDY trademark").

4. The REDDY trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

5. As well as its aforesaid trademarks, the Complainant has registered the domain name <petco.com> which it uses for its business and to market its aforesaid goods and services at www.petco.com.

6. The Respondent registered the <thereddydog.com> domain name on March 20, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights from at least 2021.

7. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the REDDY trademark, with the addition of the generic words "the" and "dog" and the Top Level Domain ".com".

8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark.

9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(a) the Complainant has and had at all material times trademark rights in the REDDY trademark and the Respondent does not have and has never had any trademark or other rights in that trademark;

(d) the Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a website where internet users are invited to click though links where the Complainant's products are sold and by which the Respondent presumably receives fees as an Amazon affiliate; that use of the domain name is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any other bona fide purpose;

(e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(g) the Respondent's site contains no disclaimer, the Respondent is implying an affiliation with the Complainant which does not exist, and the Respondent illegally displays images and other material the copyright of which is vested in the Complainant; and

(h) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(b) the Respondent has sought to benefit from the goodwill associated with the REDDY trademark and has made improper use of that trademark;

(c) the Respondent has impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and sought to promote the notion that it is affiliated with the Complainant and the REDDY brand, which it is not;

(d) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its REDDY trademark at the time that it, the Respondent, registered the domain name which was and is confusingly similar to the trademark;

(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register and use the domain name.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, the Respondent has made various comments in correspondence on the issues involved in this proceeding and the Panel will take those comments into account in reaching its decision.

FINDINGS

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of pet products, supplies, accessories and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 1965.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for REDDY.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the REDDY trademark by its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 6434886, registered on July 27, 2021 and several other trademarks for REDDY registered domestically and internationally (collectively "the REDDY trademark").

4. The Respondent registered the <thereddydog.com> domain name on March 20, 2024 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights from at least 2021.

5. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to its website, targeted the Complainant, its potential customers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, passed itself off as the Complainant and actively sought to mislead internet users to believe that the products offered on the Respondent's website were genuine products of the Complainant being sold by the Complainant.

6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence has shown that the Complainant has acquired trademark rights in the REDDY trademark and that it has used that mark for several years to offer its goods and services. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the REDDY trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 6434886, registered on July 27, 2021 and several other trademarks for REDDY registered domestically and internationally (collectively "the REDDY trademark").

The REDDY trademark is registered with respect to pet products, supplies, accessories and related goods and services, is current and is registered in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant thus has a wide range of well-established trademark rights related to pet products, supplies, accessories and related goods and services.

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's REDDY trademark. The Panel finds that the <thereddydog.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark. That is so because it consists of the wording of the trademark itself, the addition of the generic word "the", generic word "dog" and the ".com" Top Level Domain.

When a domain name includes a trademark, the domain name will usually be held to be confusingly similar to the trademark in view of the dominant presence of the trademark in the domain name. In the present case it is obviously so. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark. That conclusion is strengthened by the presence of the two generic words "the" and "dog". That is because internet users would conclude that the domain name is invoking the Complainant's trademark and the pet products, supplies, accessories and related goods and services sold under the trademark and specifically those for dogs. The inclusion of minor words such as "the" are too insignificant to influence the meaning of the domain name and in any event its presence puts the spotlight on dogs for which these accoutrements have been acquired and which thereby take on the cachet of being "REDDY" dogs.

It is also the established practice in this field that extensions such as ".com" are disregarded for the purposes of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension and its presence does not inform internet users one way or the other whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect.

These considerations make the domain name confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark.

Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REDDY trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) the Complainant has and had at all material times trademark rights in the REDDY trademark and the Respondent does not have and has never had any trademark or other rights in that trademark or any right to use it; thus, without any more, the Respondent has infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, clearly for profit by one means or another and could not have acquired any right or legitimate interest in the very domain name used to perpetrate that infringement and tarnishment;

(b) the Complainant began using the REDDY trademark at least as early as 2018 and since its registration on July 27, 2021, but the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until several years later; this shows that when the Respondent came to the field, the intellectual property rights in the trademark copied into the domain name had already been acquired by the Complainant and could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name;

(c) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship is with the Complainant; this has been established by the evidence and shows that it could not be argued that the domain name was registered or used with anything like the consent of the Complainant;

(d) the aforesaid use of the domain name is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any such bona fide purpose; there is nothing bona fide about the misleading way in which the Respondent has used the domain name; this is amply demonstrated by the Complainant's Annex E which shows the website to which the domain name resolves; this uses the Complainant's REDDY trademark so many times that it is virtually impossible to count them; it also has specific references to the Reddy Dog Collar, Reddy Dog Beds, "About the Reddy Dog Brand", "Why Chose Reddy" and similar, all profusely illustrated with images that the evidence shows are copyright in the Complainant; the products for sale are priced and there are buttons marked "Buy Now"; the evidence goes further, as Annex C shows the Complainant's official and genuine website which makes it clear that the Respondent has contrived to copy the Complainant's site and its ambiance; in particular, the Respondent has brazenly copied the Complainant's distinctive "R" logo; all of this is clearly designed to give the false impression that the Respondent's site is an official and genuine site, which it is not; the site also redirects internet users via affiliate links to REDDY products offered for sale on Amazon, no doubt generating commission revenue for the Respondent; the Respondent is thus using the Complainant's trademark to make money for itself, which is not disclosed and not qualified by a disclaimer; thus, the use made of the domain name by the Respondent is not bona fide, negating any suggestion that it could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name;

(e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, either commonly or otherwise, and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(f) the aforesaid use of the domain name is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any such legitimate, noncommercial or fair use; the aforesaid use is not legitimate as it was wholly illegitimate, it was not noncommercial as it was clearly done to make money, and it was not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users generally who were being misled;

(g) the Respondent has caused the domain name to be used to resolve to a website where internet users are invited to click though links where the Complainant's products are sold and by which the Respondent receives fees as an Amazon affiliate; this has already been established by the evidence;

(h) the Respondent's site contains no disclaimer, the Respondent is implying an affiliation with the Complainant which does not validly exist and the Respondent illegally displays images and other material the copyright of which is vested in the Complainant; this has already been established by the evidence; and

(i) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not filed a Response. There has, however, been correspondence between the Complainant, the Respondent and its hosting service. The views expressed in this correspondence by or on behalf of the Respondent are that:

"the images referenced on thereddydog.com are not hosted on my server. Instead, they are linked directly from Amazon's servers. I believe this distinction is significant, as it may affect whether my usage constitutes infringement under applicable copyright law. My intent has never been to claim ownership of these images but to utilize publicly available links in a manner I believed to be permissible."

It is also submitted that:

"By linking to images on Amazon rather than hosting them, I assumed this practice fell within acceptable bounds, especially since it could drive traffic and sales to the original sources".

However, none of these submissions has any validity and they have been persuasively responded to by the Complainant's attorney to explain to the Respondent that the evidence shows that the Respondent has used the Complainant's trademark and extensive copyright images without permission, for profit and as part of a scheme to use them to mislead internet users and to make money for the Respondent. Moreover, as the Complainant's attorney has also pointed out, and the Panel agrees, the effect of the Respondent's website is to "give the impression that (the) website is connected or sponsored by Petco". It might also be noticed that the Respondent's assertions include the thinly-veiled innuendo that it is "committed to resolving this" issue.

The prima facie case has not been rebutted by the Respondent and accordingly the Complainant has shown that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus established the second of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Annexes C and E, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration; the registration was clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademark, and also the Complainant's copyright material for a financial objective, as it resolves to a website the clear purpose of which is to earn commission for the Respondent under Amazon's affiliation program. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit; obviously, the Respondent wanted internet users to think that its domain name and the use to which it was put on its website and the opportunities it purported to offer to buy certain products were genuine and official offers from the Complainant under the REDDY brand when clearly they were not; that could not but sow confusion in the minds of internet users and is bad faith conduct;

(b) the Respondent has sought to benefit from the goodwill associated with the REDDY trademark and has made improper use of that trademark; clearly the essence of the Respondent's purported offerings was that the REDDY brand was prestigious and valuable because of the goodwill attached to it; it was this goodwill that the Respondent traded on by purloining the REDDY name and brand to make money; to do so and without permission and to construct a website to promote its subterfuge so brazenly is clearly bad faith;

(c) the Respondent has impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and sought to promote the notion that it is affiliated with the Complainant and the REDDY brand; as the Complainant's attorney explained in the correspondence with the Respondent, the Respondent clearly embarked on a plan to give the false impression that its site was the site of the Complainant itself or authorized by it, neither of which was true;

(d) the Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant and its REDDY trademark at the time that it, the Respondent, registered the domain name which was and is confusingly similar to the trademark; the Respondent seems to have done everything it could to copy the Complainant and it is inconceivable that it could have done so without actual knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark and its business;

(e) the Respondent's registration and aforesaid use of the domain name was in breach of the obligation on the Respondent under Policy ¶ 2 requiring it to represent and warrant that the registration and use of the domain name would not infringe on or violate the rights of any third party; the representations and warranty that it gave were false and the Respondent must have known that what it was doing would infringe and violate those rights, yet it went ahead; and

(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately register and use the domain name.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the REDDY trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, especially Annexes E and C, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant, its potential customers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, passed itself off as the Complainant and actively sought to mislead internet users to believe that the products being offered on the Respondent's website were genuine products of the Complainant being sold by the Complainant, which they were not.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <thereddydog.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,

Panelist

Dated: September 5, 2025