DECISION

 

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. liu chuan bang

Claim Number: FA2608002236743

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <proviablecc.store>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 4, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <proviablecc.store> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreement, which is in Chinese, 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 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@proviablecc.store. Also on August 11, 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 September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 PROCEEDING

As noted, the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <proviablecc.store> domain name shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.

 

The Panel notes that the <proviablecc.store> domain name is in English and has resolved to an English language website. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.

 

Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the proceedings may be conducted in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant and its affiliates offer a wide array of supplements for humans, dogs, cats, and horses, including PROVIABLE, a probiotic digestive pet supplement for dogs and cats. Complainant's domain name <proviable.com> resolves to a website prominently displaying its registered PROVIABLE mark and its distinctive pink bubble design scheme, an important part of Complainant's marketing program.

 

The <proviablecc.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROVIABLE trademark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <proviablecc.store> domain name. Respondent was clearly on notice of Complainant's exclusive rights in the PROVIABLE mark as a result of its numerous federal registrations of the mark in the US and other countries, and as a result of the overall fame of the PROVIABLE mark. Complainant has never granted Respondent a license or consent, express or implied, to use the PROVIABLE mark in any manner nor to register the domain name. The domain name previously directed to a page soliciting client emails and now directs to an error page. Hence Respondent is currently making no active use of the domain name but instead is passively holding it. Respondent does not refer to itself as PROVIABLECC in the WHOIS record for the domain name and does not appear to have any legitimate rights in PROVIABLECC as a trademark, service mark, or trade name. Instead, Respondent is trying to sell counterfeit PROVIABLE product or steal confidential or private customer information via the domain name for a profit. Upon information and belief, 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.

 

In light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the PROVIABLE mark and Complainant's long-standing use and promotion of its distinctive and unique PROVIABLE 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 PROVIABLE mark, which is further confirmed by the use of a pink color scheme on the webpage, imitating the look and feel of the PROVIABLE branding. This knowledge, along with the clear confusion that Respondent had to know would follow from its use of the domain name, evidences registration and use in bad faith in violation of the Policy. Finally, Registrant's use of the domain name originally to harvest personal information such as consumers' email address is evidence of bad faith use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark PROVIABLE, namely USPTO Registration No. 3,481,550, registered on August 5, 2008, for dietary and nutritional supplements, in International Class 5.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <proviablecc.store> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's PROVIABLE mark, only differing by the addition of the letters "cc", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The ".store" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides 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 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

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

 

The <proviablecc.store> domain name was registered on September 23, 2025, several years after the registration of Complainant's PROVIABLE mark. It does not currently resolve to an active website. It previously resolved to a website with the pink bubble look and feel of Complainant's website, stating: "Opening soon   Be the first to know when we launch", and seeking Internet users' email addresses.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <proviablecc.store> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(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 circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its PROVIABLE mark and its website at "www.proviable.com" when Respondent registered the <proviablecc.store> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, the Panel finds that Respondent's website has been used in bad faith to phish for users' personal information.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <proviablecc.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 3, 2026