DECISION
Neogen Corporation v. Yagi Andrianto Saputra
Claim Number: FA2601002198392
PARTIES
Complainant is Neogen Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Julie E. Reitz of Honigman LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Yagi Andrianto Saputra ("Respondent"), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <neogeneurope.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2026; Forum received payment on January 7, 2026.
On January 7, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <neogeneurope.com> 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 January 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2026 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@neogeneurope.com. Also on January 12, 2026, 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 February 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the NEOGEN trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and continuous use of the mark as its primary corporate identifier and as the principal brand since it was founded in 1982.
Complainant is headquartered in Lansing, Michigan, United States, and employs approximately 2,600 people worldwide.
In 2024, Complainant reported annual sales of approximately USD 924 million, reflecting the significant scale and commercial success of its operations and the widespread recognition of the NEOGEN trademark in the marketplace, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.
Complainant submits that it conducts business internationally and serves customers across numerous jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, multiple European countries, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, and other regions. In addition to its laboratories and production facilities, Complainant maintains offices and operational locations in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, Uruguay, Scotland, and Guatemala.
It is argued that Complainant's extensive geographic footprint demonstrates the international reach and reputation of the NEOGEN trademark.
Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the NEOGEN trademark arguing that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the NEOGEN trademark in its entirety, which is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy.
Prior panels established under the Policy have consistently held that the incorporation of a complainant's trademark in its entirety within a disputed domain name establishes confusing similarity, including Comerica Bank v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Ryan Murrayis, WIPO Case D2016‑0062 (WIPO Feb. 25, 2016), where panels found confusing similarity where the disputed domain name fully incorporated the complainant's mark.
Complainant submits that the addition of the geographic term "Europe" to the NEOGEN trademark in the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's trademark.
Complainant submits that it is well established that the addition of descriptive or geographic terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the relevant trademark remains clearly recognizable within the domain name. Panels have repeatedly affirmed this principle, including in Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018), which held that the addition of other terms, whether descriptive or geographical, does not avoid confusing similarity when the complainant's trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Complainant further submits that the presence of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> in <neogeneurope.com> is irrelevant to the assessment of confusing similarity, as it is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not add any source‑identifying significance.
It is submitted that this principle has been consistently recognized by UDRP panels, including Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002), which confirmed that gTLDs are disregarded when assessing confusing similarity under the Policy.
Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing:
· Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com>, nor by the name "Neogen Europe" or any similar designation;
· nothing in the WhoIs information provided by the Registrar suggests that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint;
· panels established under the Policy have held that where a respondent's WhoIs information does not reflect the disputed domain name, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply, including Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003), where the panel found no rights or legitimate interests because nothing in the WhoIs information implied that the respondent was commonly known by the domain name;
· the WhoIs information provided by the Registrar identifies Respondent as an individual unaffiliated with Complainant, using a generic email address and listing a residential address, as shown in a screen capture of a map exhibited in an annex to the Complaint;
· Respondent is not the owner or beneficiary of any trademark or service mark corresponding to NEOGEN, has not been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the NEOGEN trademark, and has no relationship with Complainant, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint;
· Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
· instead, as shown in a screen capture of the website which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an unrelated website offering online casino and gambling services, which is wholly unrelated to Complainant or its NEOGEN branded goods and services;
· Panels established under the Policy, have repeatedly held that such conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, including Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003), the panel held that diverting users seeking the complainant's products to an unrelated website was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c);
· Panels have specifically rejected claims of rights or legitimate interests where a disputed domain name is used to redirect users to online gambling or casino websites, as in Teck Resources Limited and Teck Operaciones Mineras Chile Limitada v. Amexa Ltda., FA 1420960 (Forum Jan. 27, 2012), the panel held that using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to various unrelated commercial websites was not a bona fide offering of goods or services;
· the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> is currently parked and resolves to a webpage displaying the message "We'll Be Back Soon!" with no active content, and panels have held that such passive holding or non-use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as in Qualcomm Incorporated v. Wells Lee, FA 1728798 (Forum May 25, 2017), the panel held that resolving a disputed domain name to a page displaying "website coming soon" did not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.
In conclusion it is submitted that as Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence to the contrary. In the absence of any such evidence, Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> in bad faith with full knowledge of Complainant's prior rights in the NEOGEN trademark.
At the time of registration, Complainant had already established long standing and extensive use of the NEOGEN trademark in commerce, supported by multiple United States trademark registrations and decades of commercial activity, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.
Complainant adds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> incorporating the NEOGEN trademark in its entirety, together with the geographic term "EUROPE", and argues that the deliberate selection of a domain name wholly comprising Complainant's distinctive trademark and a geographic descriptor directly associated with Complainant's international operations demonstrates that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its NEOGEN trademark at the time of registration, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.
Referring to its portfolio of trademark registrations, Complainant argues that its trademark rights in NEOGEN long predate Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant has used the NEOGEN trademark continuously since at least 1982 and owns numerous United States trademark registrations that were in force well before the registration of <neogeneurope.com>.
Complainant adds that its trademark registrations provided Respondent with constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the NEOGEN trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Panels established under the Policy have consistently held that the registration of a domain name incorporating a complainant's distinctive trademark, with knowledge of the complainant's prior rights, constitutes evidence of bad faith registration. In SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services, WIPO Case D2015 0565 (WIPO May 19, 2015), the panel recognized that registering a domain name with knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
It is further contended that the NEOGEN trademark is not a dictionary term and has no descriptive meaning independent of Complainant. The incorporation of the NEOGEN trademark into the disputed domain name therefore indicates that Respondent selected the domain name precisely because of its association with Complainant and its established reputation.
In conclusion it is stated that Complainant itself had itself had registered and used the disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> for nearly two decades prior to the Respondent's acquisition of the domain name, including for Complainant's European business operations and later as a redirect to <neogen.com>. Complainant argues that this long standing prior association between Complainant and the disputed domain name further supports the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights and interests when registering the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a food safety company that provides test kits and relevant products to detect dangerous substances in food.
Complainant is the owner of the NEOGEN trademark for which it holds the following trademarks:
· United States registered trademark NEOGEN, registration number 1,914,410, registered on the Principal Register on August 29, 1995, for goods in international class 6;
· United States registered trademark NEOGEN, registration number 1,966,250, registered on the Principal Register on April 9, 1996, for goods in international class 5;
· United States registered trademark NEOGEN, registration number 1,983,401, registered on the Principal Register on July 2, 1996, for goods or services in international class 9.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at <www.neogen.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 29, 2004, and resolves to a website displaying a temporary maintenance message stating, "We'll Be Back Soon!"
The only information available to the Panel about Respondent is in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.
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 provided uncontested evidence that it has rights in the NEOGEN trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of United States trademark registrations described above and has produced evidence of its continuous use of the mark in its business employing 2,600 people worldwide, reporting annual sales of USD 924 million in 2024.
The disputed domain name <neogeneurope.com> consists of Complainant's NEOGEN trademark together with the geographical placename "Europe", and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.
It is well accepted that, as in the present Complaint, when a domain name at issue contains the trademark relied upon by the complainant, the Panel may find that the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark.
In this Complaint the addition of the geographic place name "Europe" does not take away the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark in any way.
In the circumstances of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the NEOGEN trademark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
In particular, the uncontested evidence exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint show that Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainants NEOGEN mark to resolve to a website purporting to offer casino services using the name "Alexistogel" which is in no way similar to the disputed domain name or the NEOGEN mark.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In affidavits sworn by Complainant's legal representative and its IP consultant submitted to support verify the facts alleged in the Complaint, it is averred that the disputed domain <neoegeneurope.com> was originally the property of Complainant, who registered it in 2004. When in the hands of Complainant, the disputed domain name redirected to Complainant's own principal website at <neogen.com>.
Complainant does not explain how ownership of the disputed domain name changed and it was subsequently acquired by Respondent.
NEOGEN is a distinctive mark and on the balance of probabilities the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name.
It is unfortunate that Complainant has not explained how Respondent came to acquire the disputed domain name. There is no suggestion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in 2004, as it was registered by Complainant.
Policy paragraph 4(b) lists a number of scenarios if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These scenarios include "(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name". (emphasis added by the Panel).
There is no suggestion that the disputed domain name was acquired to sell it or rent it, however the wording of the Policy, as emphasized above appears to deem an acquisition to be a new registration for the purposes of the Policy.
This interpretation was endorsed by the eminent panelist M. Scott Donahey in City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE WIPO Case No. D2009-0643 stating:
"Moreover, a transfer of the domain name is held to be a new "registration," such that the good faith of the registration must be evaluated as of the date of the transfer. However a renewal of the registration is not considered a new registration, so that the renewing registrant's good faith is to be evaluated as of the date of the original registration even where, at the time of the renewal, the registrant is well aware of the trademark and is using or intends to use the domain name in the future to trade on the good will inherent in the mark."
Because the disputed domain name was originally registered and used by Complainant, and because Complainant maintains an established web presence with its website at <neogen.com>, and in the absence of any Response, the Panel finds that when Respondent acquired the disputed domain name it had knowledge of Complainant's mark and proceeded to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the NEOGEN mark.
Applying the principle in City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE, which has gained wide acceptance among panelists, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The uncontested evidence shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a gambling website. On the balance of probabilities such use was intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's website. In addition, such use of the mark was intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.
The Panel finds therefore that Respondent's use of Complainant's trademark within the address of the Respondent's website constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive "under-construction" type page. In the circumstances outlined above the Panel further finds that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <neogeneurope.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: February 2, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page