DECISION

 

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Wang Song

Claim Number: FA2509002175372

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Wang Song ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <avmacoll.shop> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 5, 2025; Forum received payment on September 5, 2025.

 

On September 7, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <avmacoll.shop> Domain Name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 September 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@avmacoll.shop. Also on September 9, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On September 30, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Bearing in mind that the Domain Name has been pointed to a commercial site in English, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel holds that the proceedings may proceed in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant owns the trade mark AVMACOL registered, inter alia, in the USA for dietary supplements since 2014.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AVMACOL trade mark merely adding a letter 'L' and the gTLD .shop which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name currently points to a commercial site which promotes a third party commercial facial product, but it was previously pointed to a site making prominent use of the Complainant's mark including in its logo form to purport to offer the Complainant's AVMACOL products and copying images and text from the Complainant's site, showing the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. The site does not explain that there is no relationship with the Complainant and since internet users would have been duped into believing the site attached to the Domain Name was an official site of the Complainant, this is not legitimate. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith, confusing customers for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. The Domain Name is also a typosquatting registration which also constitutes bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the trade mark AVMACOL registered, inter alia, in the USA for dietary supplements since 2014.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 currently points to a commercial site which promotes a third party commercial facial product, but it was previously pointed to a site making prominent use of the Complainant's mark, including in its logo form, to purport to offer the Complainant's AVMACOL product, copying images and text from the Complainant's site.

 

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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's AVMACOL trade mark (registered in the USA for dietary supplements since 2014), the letter 'L' and the gTLD .shop.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the addition of a single letter does not distinguish a domain name from a complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.  See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark merely adding the gTLD '.com' and the letter 'l'.'). Accordingly, the panel holds that the addition of a letter 'L' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

The gTLD .shop does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so was not legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The Domain Name carries a risk of affiliation with the Complainant. The web site attached to the Domain Name points to a site advertising a third party cosmetic product, but previously pointed to a site making prominent use of the Complainant's mark including in its logo form to purport to offer the Complainant's AVMACOL products, copying images and text from the Complainant's site. The Panel finds these uses were at minimum confusing, not making clear that the site has no connection to the Complainant. As such they do not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use…"); see also Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). 

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might have reasonably believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant; it is a Domain Name carrying a risk of affiliation with the Complainant and the site to which it was pointed did not make it clear it was not connected with the Complainant, at one point using the Complainant's mark prominently, including in its logo form, and material copied from the Complainant's web site to offer the Complainant's product, making it particularly difficult to discern whether or not it was a site of the Complainant. The use of material from the Complainant's site shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products, and rights.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

Since the gTLD of the Domain Name is .shop not .com as used by the Complainant the Panel is not convinced this is necessarily a case of typosquatting, even though the Complainant's mark is mispelled with an extra letter 'L', but nothing turns on this point.

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <avmacoll.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: September 30, 2025