DECISION

 

ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. Priscila Renata de Jesus

Claim Number: FA2509002176540

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH ("Complainant"), represented by Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Priscila Renata de Jesus ("Respondent"), Brazil.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <collarseresto-es.online>, <collier-seresto.com>, <collierseresto-fr.com>, <collierseresto-fr.online>, <collierseresto-es.online>, <colliersseresto-fr.com>, <serestocollar-es.com>, and <seresto-collier.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Hostinger Operations, Uab and Name SRS AB.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 11, 2025; Forum received payment on September 11, 2025.

 

Between September 15, 2025 and September 24, 2025, each of the Registrars confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <collarseresto-es.online>, <collier-seresto.com>, <collierseresto-fr.com>, <collierseresto-fr.online>, <collierseresto-es.online>, <colliersseresto-fr.com>, <serestocollar-es.com>, and <seresto-collier.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars have verified that Respondent is bound by their registration agreements 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 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 15, 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@collarseresto-es.online, postmaster@collier-seresto.com, postmaster@collierseresto-fr.com, postmaster@collierseresto-fr.online, postmaster@collierseresto-es.online, postmaster@colliersseresto-fr.com, postmaster@serestocollar-es.com, and postmaster@seresto-collier.com. Also on September 25, 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 October 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Elanco Animal Health Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company that produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock (including flea and tick collars for dogs). Complainant has rights in the SERESTO mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with multiple international government agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 4,317,500, registered on April 9, 2013). Respondent's <collarseresto-es.online>, <collier-seresto.com>, <collierseresto-fr.com>, <collierseresto-fr.online>, <collierseresto-es.online>, <colliersseresto-fr.com>, <serestocollar-es.com>, and <seresto-collier.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's SERESTO mark as they merely add the descriptive terms "collar" or "collier" (French for "collar"), in some cases the country abbreviations ("-es" and "-fr") for France and Spain and a generic top-level-domain ("gTLD") to the wholly incorporated mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the SERESTO mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent passes off as Complainant by advertising counterfeit versions of Complainant's products for sale on the Domain Names' resolving websites ("Respondent's Websites").  

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. The Respondent disrupts Complainant's business as Respondent uses the Respondent's Websites to pass off as Complainant while offering to sell counterfeit products. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the SERESTO mark prior to registering the Domain Names based on the content of the Respondent's Websites which reproduce images of Complainant's products.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the SERESTO mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's SERESTO mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

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

Complainant has rights in the SERESTO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,317,500, registered on April 9, 2013). Registration of a mark with a nation's trademark agency is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (holding, "Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)").

 

The Panel finds that <collarseresto-es.online>, <collier-seresto.com>, <collierseresto-fr.com>, <collierseresto-fr.online>, <collierseresto-es.online>, <colliersseresto-fr.com>, <serestocollar-es.com>, and <seresto-collier.com> are confusingly similar to the SERESTO mark as they each incorporate the SERESTO mark while adding the descriptive terms "collar" or "collier" (French for "collar") a gTLD and in some cases a geographical abbreviation. Adding a generic or descriptive term (including a geographical term) and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."); see also Cargill, Incorporated v. Sales Office / Cargill Brasil, FA 1737212 (Forum July 21, 2017) (finding the addition of the geographic term "Brasil" does not avoid confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SERESTO mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "Priscila Renata de Jesus" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names resolve or have resolved to the Respondent's Websites¹ which, through the reproduction of the SERESTO Mark and reference to (and copyrighted photos of) Complainant's products, pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant for the purpose of selling unauthorized versions of Complainant's goods, in direct competition with Complainant's merchandise. The use of confusingly similar domain names to resolve to webpages that directly offer unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."); see also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (on or after April 9, 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's SERESTO mark since the Respondent's Websites pass off as official websites of the Complainant and as such reproduce material from Complainant and make repeated references to Complainant and its products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register eight domain names that contain the SERESTO mark and use them to redirect visitors to websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the SERESTO mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the SERESTO mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's SERESTO mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites that, through the use of the SERESTO mark and copyrighted material, pass off as official websites of Complainant and offers unauthorized versions of Complainant's products in direct competition with the Complainant's products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also 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.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <collarseresto-es.online>, <collier-seresto.com>, <collierseresto-fr.com>, <collierseresto-fr.online>, <collierseresto-es.online>, <colliersseresto-fr.com>, <serestocollar-es.com>, and <seresto-collier.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: October 17, 2025