DECISION

 

SanMedica IP Holdings, LLC v. Maci Woyat

Claim Number: FA2606002224825

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SanMedica IP Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Laura M. Konkel of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Maci Woyat ("Respondent"), District of Columbia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <serovitals.com>, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <serovitals.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 June 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 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@serovitals.com. Also on June 4, 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 June 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant has sold SEROVITAL supplements since 2012. Complainant owns U.S. Registration No. 4339758 for the SEROVITAL mark for "dietary supplements" in Class 5, which was granted on May 21, 2013. Complainant uses the domain name <serovital.com> for its primary website. Complainant's mark SEROVITAL is a well-known trademark with valuable goodwill inuring to Complainant's benefit. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as the addition of an "s" to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's trademark.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by or operates a business or other organization under the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant, or an authorized seller of Complainant's products, by prominently displaying Complainant's trademark and copyright-protected advertising materials in connection with the purported offering of Complainant's goods.

 

iii) Respondent obviously registered and uses the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's SEROVITAL mark, as evidenced by Respondent's prominent use of Complainant's mark and copyright-protected content. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host an imposter website, for the purpose of passing itself off as Complainant or an authorized seller of Complainant's products, is also evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 2, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the SEROVITAL mark for "dietary supplements" in Class 5 by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,339,758 registered May 21, 2013).

 

3. Respondent has resolved the disputed domain name to a website that copies Complainant's official website. Complainant's SEROVITAL mark is prominently displayed on Respondent's website, and the website promotes only Complainant's SEROVITAL 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 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

Complainant asserts rights in the SEROVITAL mark for "dietary supplements" in Class 5, by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,339,758 registered May 21, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is typically considered valid evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided proof of its trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SEROVITAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <serovitals.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it merely adds the letter "s" to Complainant's SEROVITAL mark. The addition of the letter "s" and a gTLD does not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the additions of the letter "s" and generic top-level domains to the disputed <barnesandnobles.info> and <barnesandnobles.biz> domain names failed to avoid the confusing similarity between the domain names and the complainant's BARNESANDNOBLE.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SEROVITAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; furthermore, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "Maci Woyat" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant highlights that Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by resolving the disputed domain name to a website offering goods under the SEROVITAL mark. Complainant's SEROVITAL mark is prominently displayed on Respondent's website, and the website promotes only Complainant's SEROVITAL products.

 

As Respondent's website is offering only Complainant's genuine goods, the question of fair use must be considered. The leading case on this issue is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., where Respondent was a reseller of Complainant's OKIDATA products. Respondent registered and used the domain name <okidataparts.com> for that business. The panel in that case found that such use could qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy if certain conditions were met:

 

(i) Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;

(ii) Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that Respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods);

(iii) The site itself must accurately disclose Respondent's relationship with the trademark owner; and

(iv) Respondent must not try to "corner the market" in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

 

The Panel notes that Respondent's website does not disclose its relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, the website associated with the disputed domain name uses Complainant's copyrighted promotional photos, videos, and the same layout as those of Complainant. The Panel finds that it is highly likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's website, or at least that the operator of the website is officially associated with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response, or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host an imposter website for the purpose of passing itself off as Complainant, or an authorized seller of Complainant's products, is evidence of bad faith.

 

As previously noted, the website at the disputed domain name promotes only Complainant's SEROVITAL products. Although Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine products, the Panel notes that Respondent's website does not disclose its relationship with Complainant. Furthermore, the website associated with the disputed domain name uses Complainant's copyrighted promotional photos, videos, and the same layout as those of Complainant. The Panel finds that it is highly likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's website, or at least that the operator of the website is officially associated with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, and by creating confusion with Complainant's SEROVITAL mark for commercial gain by misleading consumers into believing that Respondent's website is Complainant's official website, or at least is connected to Complainant.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), and thus Complainant has satisfied the threshold per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's SEROVITAL mark, as evidenced by Respondent's prominent use of Complainant's mark and copyright-protected content.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has continuously used the SEROVITAL mark in connection with dietary supplements since 2012, and that it had become well-known with valuable goodwill inuring to Complainant's benefit long prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name mimicking Complainant's official website, as well as the notoriety of Complainant's mark, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SEROVITAL mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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 <serovitals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: June 25, 2026