Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante
Claim Number: FA2010001916228
Complainant is Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, United States. Respondent is Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante ("Respondent"), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <labcrp.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o..
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 8, 2020.
On October 13, 2020, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <labcrp.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 October 16, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 5, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@labcrp.com. Also on October 16, 2020, 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 registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 10, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a health care diagnostics company that provides clinical laboratory services throughout the world, with annual revenues of $11.5 billion, nearly 65,000 employees, and hundreds of thousands of customers. Complainant has used the LABCORP mark in connection with its services since 1995 and owns longstanding trademark registrations for LABCORP and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions.
The disputed domain name <labcrp.com> was registered in December 2005; the registration was held in the name of a privacy registration service immediately prior to the commencement of this proceeding. The domain name is being used to redirect users to various other websites, apparently via an advertising network system. It is also being offered for sale through a domain name marketplace at a price of $8,560. Complainant states that there is no relationship between the parties, that Respondent does not have permission to use Complainant's mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <labcrp.com> is confusingly similar to its LABCORP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <labcrp.com> is confusingly similar to its LABCORP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <labcrp.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered LABCORP trademark, omitting the letter "O" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1831778 (Forum Apr. 1, 2019) (finding <laborp.com> confusingly similar to LABCORP); Hot Topic, Inc. v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt c/o Whois Service, FA 1301464 (Forum Feb. 17, 2010) (finding <hottpic.com> confusingly similar to HOT TOPIC). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, 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 name incorporates a typographical variation of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used to redirect users to various unrelated commercial websites and is being offered for sale through a domain name marketplace. Such activities are unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1894062 (Forum May 24, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); LF, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1810280 (Forum Oct. 31, 2018) (same); Edelman Shoe, Inc. v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante, FA 1630741 (Forum Aug. 27, 2015) (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.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." 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."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, but for a typographical error, and appears to be using it to generate revenue by redirecting users to other websites via an advertising network system. In addition, the domain name is being offered for sale through a domain name marketplace at a price presumably in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Edelman Shoe, Inc. v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante, supra (same). The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's history of bad faith domain name registrations, see, e.g., Edelman Shoe, Inc. v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante, supra; Good Chevrolet Inc. v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante, FA 1586324 (Forum Jan. 12, 2015) (noting Respondent's "history of bad faith"); Advance Auto Parts, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Innovations, LLC v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante, FA 1572883 (Forum Sept. 11, 2014) (noting Respondent's "history of cybersquatting"), and infers that Respondent was aware of and intentionally targeted Complainant and its mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <labcrp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page