DECISION

 

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. wangran / huicaiqiye

Claim Number: FA2604002214728

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dasuqian.net>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2026; Forum received payment on April 8, 2026.

 

On April 12, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dasuqian.net> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 April 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 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@dasuqian.net. Also on April 21, 2026, 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 May 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 THE PROCEEDING

Complainant, a United States headquartered company, registered DASUQUIN as a trademark with the USPTO in the United States as well as with other registrars worldwide. Complainant's DASUQUIN mark contains English characters as does the at-issue domain name. The website addressed by the at the at-issue domain name returns an English error message indicating that "this site can't be reached." Additionally, Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax.

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language. Since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of the English language, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to alone endure the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese. Importantly, Respondent was served with Notice of the Complaint in both English and Chinese, yet Respondent failed to respond or object in any manner.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including Respondent proficiency in English, the proper service of a Chinese and an English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina. Complainant's headquarters are located in Lancaster, South Carolina. Since at least as early as 1992, Complainant and its affiliates have manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold a range of high-quality pet and human supplements to its clients throughout the United States.

 

One of Complainant's top selling supplements is DASUQUIN which is a joint health supplement for dogs and cats. Complainant has been selling DASUQUIN-branded joint health supplements since at least as early as 2006. In acknowledgment of Complainant's trademark rights in the DASUQUIN mark, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued Complainant federal registrations for the DASUQUIN mark. Further, Complainant has obtained registration of its DASUQUIN mark in many countries around the world including in China.

 

Without Complainant's knowledge or consent, Respondent registered the domain name on April 8, 2024. Respondent is holding the domain name but not putting it into active use. The domain name reverts to an "Error" page which says "this site can't be reached" and the webpage is inaccessible to visitors. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register or use the domain name or to use its DASUQUIN mark in connection with any goods or services.

 

The Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar to the DASUQUIN Mark. Complainant owns valid and enforceable rights in the DASUQUIN mark. Additionally, the at-issue domain name merely deletes the second "u" in Nutramax's highly distinctive DASUQUIN mark and adds the letter "a." Such a minor misspelling does not remove the confusing similarity between the DASUQUIN mark and the domain name. The change of the "u" to an "a" does not change the meaning of the mark or its similarity to the distinctive DASUQUIN trademark. Further, the addition of a top-level domain such as ".net" is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar because a top-level domain is a required element of every domain name.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. Respondent's registration and use of the domain name is an attempt to trade on the goodwill of the DASUQUIN mark by misleading internet users into visiting its website when they are looking for Complainant's website or products. Respondent is making no active use of the domain name but instead is passively holding <dasuqian.net>. It is established that such passive holding is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Respondent registered the at-issue domain name almost twenty years after the first use of the DASUQUIN mark. Respondent was on notice of Complainant's exclusive rights in the DASUQUIN mark as a result of Complainant's numerous federal registrations of the marks in the United States and other countries, and as a result of the overall fame of the marks. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, nor has it at any time received from Complainant a license or consent, express or implied, to use the DASUQUIN mark, or a confusingly similar iteration thereof, in a domain name or in any other manner. As such, Respondent's use of DASUQUIN in the domain name is not a legitimate use. Respondent, which does not refer to itself as DASUQUIN in the WHOIS record for the domain name, does not appear to have any legitimate rights in Dasuqian as a trademark, service mark, or trade name. DASUQUIN has no meaning other than as a coined term owned by Complainant. It therefore may be presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in as a domain name. Respondent has never used, nor even made preparation to use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services, nor has it made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Because there is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights in Dasuqian, no evidence that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the trademark and no evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the at-issue domain name, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Respondent Has Registered and Used the Domain Name in Bad Faith.

In light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the DASUQUIN mark as well as Complainant's long-standing use and promotion of its distinctive and unique DASUQUIN mark, there is no plausible good-faith reason for Respondent to have registered the domain name other than to trade on the consumer recognition and goodwill of the DASUQUIN mark. A respondent's failure to make active use of a domain name, such as the case here, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent selected the domain name to unfairly benefit from consumer confusion who are attempting to access Complainant's actual website at the similar domain name. Such conduct is a classic example of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the DASUQUIN trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the DASUQUIN trademark.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.

 

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 at-issue <dasuqian.net> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration of DASUQUIN as well as any of its other registrations worldwide is sufficient to establish Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <dasuqian.net> domain name contains a recognizable misspelling of Complainant's DASUQUIN trademark where the mark's second "u" is replaced by the letter "i" and the mark's letter "i" is replaced by the letter "a," with all followed by a domain name necessary top-level, here ".net." The differences between Respondent's <dasuqian.net> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from such trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <dasuqian.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DASUQUIN mark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <dasuqian.net> leads to identifying the registrant as "wangran / huicaiqiye" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <dasuqian.net> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Further, browsing to Respondent's domain name returns an error message stating "this site can't be reached" and fails to display any substantive content. Respondent thus holds the <dasuqian.net> domain name passively which indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <dasuqian.net>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent's at-issue domain name currently fails to address any substantive content and instead returns a system error message. The domain name can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of <dasuqian.net> disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade, FA 1811640 (Forum Nov. 11, 2018) (". . . Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DASUQUIN mark when Respondent registered <dasuqian.net> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant's DASUQUIN trademark and from Respondent's overt misspelling of Complainant's unique mark. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in DASUQUIN further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).

 

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 <dasuqian.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 12, 2026