DECISION

 

Elanco Animal Health GmbH v. Ivan Jackson

Claim Number: FA2607002233008

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Elanco Animal Health GmbH ("Complainant"), Germany, represented by Corsearch, Inc., United States. Respondent is Ivan Jackson ("Respondent"), Seychelles.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2026; Forum received payment on July 15, 2026.

 

On August 5, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to Forum that the <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@serescollar.com and postmaster@seresflea.com. Also on August 6, 2026, the 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, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a subsidiary of Elanco Animal Health Inc., a global pharmaceutical company that develops and sells products and services for animal health. Complainant uses the SERESTO mark in connection with insecticide products for pets, including anti-flea and tick collars. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for SERESTO in the United States, the European Union, and other jurisdictions.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com> in December 2025. The <serescollar.com> domain name does not resolve to a website. The <seresflea.com> domain name is being used for a website that prominently displays Complainant's ELANCO and SERESTO marks and images of SERESTO-branded products, which it purports to offer for sale. The copyright statement in the footer identifies the operator of the website as "Seresto." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com> are confusingly similar to its SERESTO mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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

Each of the disputed domain names <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com> incorporates most of Complainant's registered SERESTO trademark, omitting only the last two letters, and adds a generic term related to Complainant's products ("collar" or "flea") and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Elanco Animal Health GmbH v. Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi, FA 2230482 (Forum Aug. 9, 2026) (finding <serestofleacollar.com> confusingly similar to SERESTO); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. lu jian feng / ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, FA 2226855 (Forum July 15, 2026) (finding <pet-sereotsocollar.com>, <sereotscollarshop.com>, <sereotsocatcollars.com>, <sereotsodogcollar.com>, <sereotsopetcollar.com>, <sereotsopetcollarit.com>, and <serespetocollar.com> confusingly similar to SERESTO); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, FA 2213949 (Forum May 6, 2026) (finding <sereotsocatcollar.com> confusingly similar to SERESTO). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain names incorporate most of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. One does not appear to have been used actively; the other is being used for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and possibly counterfeit or nonexistent products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Elanco Animal Health GmbH v. Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. lu jian feng / ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, supra (same); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Complainant registered two domain names that combine most of Complainant's mark with a generic term related to Complainant's products, and is using one of them for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and possibly counterfeit or nonexistent products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Elanco Animal Health GmbH v. Bobbi Bobbi / Bobbi, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. lu jian feng / ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, supra (same); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. ASHLEE BRYANN-MORGAN EVANS / ASHLEE EVANS AEA LLC, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <serescollar.com> and <seresflea.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2026