{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105241", "time_of_filling": "2023-02-28 11:06:24", "domain_names": [ "virbacs.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "VIRBAC" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "andye Chenoo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Founded in 1968 in France by Pierre-Richard Dick, <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant is an old and well-established company dedicated exclusively to animal health. With a turnover of €869 million in 2018, the company ranks today as the 6th largest animal health company worldwide. Its wide range of vaccines and medicines are used in the prevention and treatment of the main pathologies for both companion and food-producing animals. Present through health products in more than 100 countries, the company has more than 4,900 employees.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns a portfolio of domain names containing the term <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>, such as its official domain name <virbac.com>, registered since <\/span>15 January <\/span>2000.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on <\/span>25 <\/span>November 2022 and resolves to a branded VIRBAC online store.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/span><\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span> and that <\/span>the trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span> is included in its entirety<\/span> in the disputed domain name<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>The Complainant <\/span>further <\/span>contends that addition of the letter “S” at the end of <\/span>the<\/span> trademark does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s <\/span>trademark. Th<\/span>e Complainant argues that this <\/span>is a case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark<\/span>, and that p<\/span>revious panels found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to <\/span>a<\/span> complainant’s trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic <\/span>t<\/span>op-<\/span>l<\/span>evel <\/span>d<\/span>omain suffix “.<\/span>com<\/span>” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span><\/span>and he is not related in any way with the Complainant<\/span>. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>,<\/span> or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>. Typosquatting<\/em> is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. <\/span><\/p>\n

The domain name redirects to a website displaying <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant’s trademark and logo and images of <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant’s products. There is no disclaimer on the website to avoid the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant in order to offer <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant’s drug products and information. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii)<\/span>, and thus, <\/span>the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name<\/span> <\/span>is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>. Therefore, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and with the Complainant in mind.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and branded goods <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>. Indeed, the addition of the letter “S” at the end of the trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark <\/span>“<\/span>VIRBAC<\/span>”<\/span>. The Complainant states that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant and attempt to sell Complainant’s products without authorization. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to sell a complainant’s products without authorization is evidence of bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Thus, <\/span>the <\/span>Complainant contends that <\/span>the <\/span>Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the <\/span>following registered rights:<\/span><\/p>\n