WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Pet Plan Ltd v. AD Burns Case No. D2019-0755 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pet Plan Ltd, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is AD Burns, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Smith & Hopen, P.A., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2019. On April 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2019. On April 29, 2019, the Respondent requested the automatic four-day extension of the deadline to file a Response under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. The Center granted the requested extension and confirmed that the new deadline for Response was May 5, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on May 3, 2019.

On May 13, 2019, the Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing. On May 21, 2019, the Respondent also submitted a Supplemental Filing.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü, Assen Alexiev, and Richard G. Lyon as panelists in this matter on June 12, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is company located in the UK, which provides pet insurance and related services for domestic and exotic pets. It was founded in 1976 and offers its services in various jurisdictions around the world, either directly or by way of licensees.

The Complainant owns various PETPLAN trademark registrations in different jurisdictions, including United States Trademark Registrations No. 78474288 (registered on October 24, 2006) and No. 5218393 (registered on June 6, 2017), both covering protection i.e. for insurance services as protected in class 36.

The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names incorporating the PETPLAN trademark, such as “” and “” (for customers in Canada and UK).

The Respondent is an individual resident in the United States. He registered the disputed domain name on November 3, 2011.

The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name at least in the years 2012 and 2013 resolved to a website, which was used for services related to drug prescription plans for pets, allowing users to receive a discount on prescription drug prices at certain pharmacies (cf. Annex 3 to the Complaint). As can be seen on the provided screenshots, the Respondent used the terms “pet” and “plan” together with the prefix “rx” by writing them separately, not in one word as the Complainant’s PETPLAN trademark.

Prior to initiation of the administrative proceedings, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent and asking for a transfer of the disputed domain name at no costs (cf. Annex 7 to the Complaint). However, it remains unclear whether the Respondent has ever received and obtained knowledge about this approach. In any event no reply was ever sent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PETPLAN trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant and the Respondent.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent “must have been aware” of the Complainant’s PETPLAN trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. In addition, it is inter alia argued that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to offer services competitive with those provided by the Complainant. B. Respondent

The Respondent requests the denial of the Complaint and a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”).

The Respondent alleges to have used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services prior to the notice of this dispute. Furthermore, the Respondent argues that it made “fair use” of the disputed domain name without any intent to commercially gain from misleading or diverting consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent further alleges that it was unaware of the Complainant or its PETPLAN trademarks until notice of these administrative proceedings. In this regard, the Respondent argues that the Complainant has not provided any evidence of use of its PETPLAN trademarks in the United States prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Supplemental Filings

The Panel declines to admit the Parties’ Supplemental Filings.

There is no provision in the Rules allowing such supplemental filings. Rather, the Panel has discretion to admit them, but in this case declines to do so. The Panel notes that the supplemental filings submitted by the Parties mainly repeat arguments already contained in the Complaint and the Response. To the limited extent that they introduce additional arguments and material, the Panel is of the opinion that these arguments and material could have been included in the original Complaint and respectively in the Response.

Just for the sake of completeness the Panel notes that the Parties’ supplemental filings mainly contain legal arguments without the provision of new and relevant evidential material, and hence, nothing which would alter the Panel’s analysis below. 6.2. Substantive Issues

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in