{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107426", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-21 09:41:40", "domain_names": [ "verbac.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "VIRBAC" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "VMI INC" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Founded in 1968 in France by Pierre-Richard Dick, the Complainant presents itself as 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.<\/p>\n

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

The disputed domain name <verbac.com> was registered on 11 February, 2013 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/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.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <verbac.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark VIRBAC as the only change of the letter “I” to “E” in the trademark does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also submits that this is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, as the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark.

No rights or legitimate interests<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name nor appears in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized in other way to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor is in any way related to the Complainant as 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 VIRBAC or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links connected to the Complainant’s goods and services which is considered as a clear case of not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that its registered trademarks are widely known and given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, according to the complainant, the Respondent certainly had full knowledge of the Complainant rights over the name VIBAC at the time of the disputed domain name’s registration.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s VIRBAC trademark for its illegitimate commercial gain by using the domain name to resolve to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to trademarks 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 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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n