DECISION

 

ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC / Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi / Sergei Reva

Claim Number: FA2603002210129

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH ("Complainant"), represented by Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC / Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi / Sergei Reva ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <serestodogcollar.co>, <serestodogcollar.com>, <serestofleacollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown.

 

For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain names for this case are <serestodogcollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.co>.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 12, 2026; Forum received payment on March 12, 2026.

 

On March 13 and 14, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serestodogcollar.co>, <serestodogcollar.com>, <serestofleacollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.com> domain names are registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Tucows Domains Inc. and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown have verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. and TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown 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 March 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 13, 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@serestodogcollar.co, postmaster@serestodogcollar.com, postmaster@serestofleacollar.co, and postmaster@serestofleacollar.com. Also on March 23, 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 April 14, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. In support of this allegation it states that the WHOIS for the disputed domain names all share the following details:

a)       Similar Registrars: Tucows and Cosmotown, Inc.

b)       Similar IP : 23.227.38.65 and 104.21.44 (104.21.46).

c)       The domain names are similarly constructed and all the domain names contain the descriptive term 'collar', and use .com or .co gTLD.

d)       Linked Nameservers: Cloudflare and NJALLA (Even if the name servers belong to Njalla, the "Server Type" appearing as Cloudflare suggests that the actual traffic is being routed through Cloudflare's network). WHOIS records for <serestofleacollar.co> and <serestodogcollar.co> show DNS is NJALLA and Server Type: Cloudflare.

 

Further, says Complainant:

e)       The resolving websites advertise and allegedly offer the same selection of three products from Complainant's much larger collection (Seresto Large Dog, Seresto Small Dog, Seresto Cat).

f)       The resolving websites use in the same manner Complainant's SERESTO logo, featured in the same location, upper left side of the resolving websites.

 

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

 

The Panel finds that allegations (a)-(f) above do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control. Further, the resolving websites for the domain names <serestodogcollar.com> and <serestofleacollar.com> are different from each other, and different from the resolving website for the domain names <serestodogcollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.co> (the resolving websites for these two domain names are identical).

 

Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that all disputed domain names were registered by the same person or entity.

 

Under Forum's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent. 

 

Accordingly, the Panel will rule only on the <serestodogcollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.co> domain names (which have the same registrant), and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the <serestodogcollar.com>, and <serestofleacollar.com> domain names. See Brian Renner v. Contactprivacy.com, FA 1335211 (Forum Aug. 26, 2010); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker, FA 1973471 (Forum Dec 17, 2021).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it offers market-leading pet care products, which include Seresto, K9 Advantix II, Advantage II, Advantage Multi, Advantage Home & Yard, Quellin, and Synovi. SERESTO is an insecticide designed to help protect pets from fleas and ticks that can negatively impact a pet's quality of life and may cause dangerous diseases. Pet owners rely on SERESTO as a valued, effective and convenient vet-recommended solution against fleas and ticks. SERESTO has been thoroughly evaluated by regulators – including the U.S. EPA – in 80 countries all over the world, and Complainant owns associated trademark registrations for SERESTO in many of these countries. Extensive research and 25 million uses in the U.S. alone by pet owners during the past nine years have demonstrated SERESTO'S safety profile and effectiveness. Complainant asserts rights in the SERESTO mark through its registration in the European Union in 2011.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its SERESTO mark, as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "dog collar" or "flea collar", and the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving websites offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain by selling unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods. Respondent had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant's rights in the SERESTO mark, evidenced by the fame and notoriety of the mark and its use on the resolving websites. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Respondent used a privacy service. Since MX records are configured for the disputed domain names, they could be used in furtherance of phishing.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark SERESTO and uses it to market an insecticide designed to help protect pets from fleas and ticks. The mark was registered in 2011.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2025 and 2026.

 

The resolving websites offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's products; they display Complainant's mark and images of Complainant's products.

 

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 3.1 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 disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's SERESTO mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "dog collar" or "flea collar", together with the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a ccTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: the Panel may reference WHOIS information to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information shows that the registrant is known as "Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving websites sell unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) ("Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant's WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant's products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complaint notes that MX records have been configured for the disputed domain names, and states that they could be used for email phishing. However, Complainant does not present any evidence of actual use of the disputed domain names in emails. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not fulfilled its duty of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it.

 

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's products. This is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, FA 1587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant's marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, FA 1571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent's bad faith was "apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name's website are legitimate…"); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant's products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent's selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant's affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant's connection with the website by selling counterfeit products). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving websites display Complainant's mark and images of Complainant's products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in several prior UDRP proceedings. This is sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA 1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent's registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

DECISION

The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <serestodogcollar.com> and <serestofleacollar.com> domain names.

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <serestodogcollar.co> and <serestofleacollar.co>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain names.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <serestodogcollar.co>, and <serestofleacollar.co> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <serestodogcollar.com> and <serestofleacollar.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 14, 2026