DECISION

 

Urocare Products Inc. v. Tobiasz Kowalski / Aylor Hith / AylorHith / Mayank Mishra / Thomas Bianchini

Claim Number: FA2602002205570

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Urocare Products Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rachel A. Nicholas of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Tobiasz Kowalski / Aylor Hith / AylorHith / Mayank Mishra / Thomas Bianchini ("Respondent"), Various Locations.

 

REGISTRARS AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <us-urocarefloraguard.com>, <en-urocare.com>, <theurocare.com> and <urocare-flora-guard.com>, registered with Devexpanse Ltd, NameCheap, Inc., Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and Register SpA.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 16, 2026; Forum received payment on February 16, 2026.

 

On February 16 and 17, 2026, Devexpanse Ltd, NameCheap, Inc., Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and Register SpA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <us-urocarefloraguard.com>, <en-urocare.com>, <theurocare.com>, and <urocare-flora-guard.com> domain names are registered with Devexpanse Ltd, NameCheap, Inc., Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and Register SpA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Devexpanse Ltd, NameCheap, Inc., Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and Register SpA have verified that Respondent is bound by the Devexpanse Ltd, NameCheap, Inc., Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and Register SpA 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 February 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a French and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@us-urocarefloraguard.com, postmaster@en-urocare.com, postmaster@theurocare.com, and postmaster@urocare-flora-guard.com. Also on February 23, 2026, the French 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 French and English.

 

On March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Here, there are multiple domain name holders, but Complainant petitions the Panel to treat them as, in effect, owned or controlled by a single, unknown, person or entity.

 

The commonalities relied upon by Complainant in support of that petition are that the domain names were registered within a three-month timeframe in 2025; the resolving websites all show an image of Complainant's product bearing its trademark; and the websites themselves show a high degree of resemblance to each other.

 

The Panel considers these facts to be more than coincidental and raise a reasonable inference that the names are linked to one controlling mind. The named respondents had the opportunity to file submissions in Response but did not do so. Taking these considerations together, the Panel treats the named respondents as a single person or entity for the purposes of Rule 3 and herein refers to them together as "Respondent" (see, for example, AARP v. M P / Priyal Parikh / Amin Mokki / Jack Mrk / Sumi Sara, FA 2077700 (Forum Feb 8, 2024) permitting consolidation where five domain names followed similar naming patterns and resolved to similar impersonation and phishing sites; Eli Lilly and Company v. Private Registration, WhoisGuardService.com, D2016-1737 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2016) where consolidation found to be fair and equitable where "the respondent has the opportunity to make its submissions on the validity of the consolidation together with its substantive arguments. … The Respondent had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint.").

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise.  

 

The Panel notes that according to Register SpA, the registration agreement for the domain name, <us-urocarefloraguard.com>, is written in French, making French the language of the proceedings for that name.

 

Complainant filed the Complaint in English but has petitioned the Panel to accept the Complaint and adopt English as the language of the proceeding because the content of each of the resolving websites is entirely in English and the registration agreement for <us-urocarefloraguard.com> is actually available in English at the Registrar's website. Further, that due to the time and cost that would be incurred by Complainant translating the Amended Complaint, the language of the proceedings should be English.

 

Three of the disputed domain names have English-language agreements. The Panel has found that it is more likely than not that all four domain names are controlled by a single, unknown, person or entity. Rule 10(a) provides that "[t]he Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate" and Rule 10(b) provides that "the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case", but that (Rule 10(c)) it "shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition."

 

As stated, there has been no Response, nor any communication from Respondent objecting that it could not read or understand the Complaint. As discussed hereunder, Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names and the reasonable inference is that the domain names were registered in bad faith and then used in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in UROCARE which it has used 1976 in connection with urinary care products and equipment. Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant states that the disputed domain names were created in 2025 long after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not known by any of the names and has not been authorized to use the trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith having targeted Complainant and its trademark. Complainant states that the domain names resolve to websites which offer goods identical to those put on the market by Complainant under the trademark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant makes and sells urinary incontinence care products

under the trademark, UROCARE;

2.       Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 1,392,075, for the trademark, UROCARE (stylized), registered May 6, 1986;

3.       the disputed domain names were all registered in 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       the disputed domain names resolve to a websites advertising for sale urinary incontinence care products carrying the trademark.

 

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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of UROCARE with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights. The registered mark carries a small degree of stylization, but the word UROCARE remains clear and the Panel treats the registration as that of a word mark for the purposes of this aspect of the Policy. Panels have generally taken the view that a stylised mark can be treated as a word mark if the textual element is readily perceived.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are all confusing similar to the trademark. In each case the gTLD can be ignored. Thereafter, the domain names take the trademark and add generic/descriptive terms such as "the", "en" (English), or "floraguard", and/or the geographic designator "us". These additions are insufficient to create points of distinction from the trademark (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.")).

 

The Panel accordingly finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. The use of the domain names as described above is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the names.

 

The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

4(b)(iv)        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. The resolving websites clearly exist for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites and the products promoted there (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under 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.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <us-urocarefloraguard.com>, <en-urocare.com>, <theurocare.com> and <urocare-flora-guard.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: March 26, 2026