AARP v. priyal parikh / Guddu theweb / Rahmat Ali / Amin Mokki / Rahul Ravindra / Pradeep technologies / Pawan Kumar / urban fashion225 / Amin Mokki / Thomas Burns
Claim Number: FA2109001962697
Complainant is AARP (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is priyal parikh / Guddu theweb / Rahmat Ali / Amin Mokki / Rahul Ravindra / Pradeep technologies / Pawan Kumar / urban fashion225 / Amin Mokki / Thomas Burns (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <myaarpmedicare.xyz>, <myaarpmedicare.live>, <myaarpmedicare.health>, <myaarpmedicare.shop>, <myaarpmedicare.guide>, <myaarpmedicare.bio>, <myaarpmedicare.today>, <myaarpmedicare.date>, <myaarpmedicare.expert>, <myaarpmedicare.review>, <myaarpmedicare.reviews>, <myaarpmedicare.fit>, <myaarpmedicare.work>, <myaarpmedicare.tips>, <myaarpmedicare.fyi>, <myaarpmedicare.life>, <myaarpmedicare.vip>, <myaarpmedicare.rocks>, <myaarpmedicare.top>, <myaarpmedicare.guru>, <myaarpmedicare.ltd>, <myaarpmedicare.onl>, <myaarpmedicare.zone>, <myaarpmedicare.win>, <myaarpmedicare.clinic>, <myaarpmedicare.kim>, <myaarpmedicare.app>, <myaarpmedicare.best>, <myaarpmedicare.company>, <myaarpmedicare.cool>, <myaarpmedicare.one>, <myaarpmedicare.blog>, <myaarpmedicare.plus>, <myaarpmedicare.page>, <myaarpmedicare.run>, <myaarpmedicare.link>, <myaarpmedicare.world>, <myaarpmedicare.fun>, <myaarpmedicare.bid>, <myaarpmedicare.center>, <myaarpmedicare.icu>, <myaarpmedicare.express>, <myaarpmedicare.family>, <myaarpmedicare.help>, <myaarpmedicare.mom>, <myaarpmedicare.news>, <myaarpmedicare.party>, <myaarpmedicare.red>, <myaarpmedicare.rip>, <myaarpmedicare.vin>, <myaarpmedicare.blue>, <myaarpmedicare.care>, and <myaarpmedicare.wiki>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc, Namecheap, Inc., or Porkbun Llc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 7, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 7, 2021.
On September 8, 2021; September 9, 2021; September 10, 2021; September 15, 2021, Godaddy.Com, Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Porkbun Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <myaarpmedicare.xyz>, <myaarpmedicare.live>, <myaarpmedicare.health>, <myaarpmedicare.shop>, <myaarpmedicare.guide>, <myaarpmedicare.bio>, <myaarpmedicare.today>, <myaarpmedicare.date>, <myaarpmedicare.expert>, <myaarpmedicare.review>, <myaarpmedicare.reviews>, <myaarpmedicare.fit>, <myaarpmedicare.work>, <myaarpmedicare.tips>, <myaarpmedicare.fyi>, <myaarpmedicare.life>, <myaarpmedicare.vip>, <myaarpmedicare.rocks>, <myaarpmedicare.top>, <myaarpmedicare.guru>, <myaarpmedicare.ltd>, <myaarpmedicare.onl>, <myaarpmedicare.zone>, <myaarpmedicare.win>, <myaarpmedicare.clinic>, <myaarpmedicare.kim>, <myaarpmedicare.app>, <myaarpmedicare.best>, <myaarpmedicare.company>, <myaarpmedicare.cool>, <myaarpmedicare.one>, <myaarpmedicare.blog>, <myaarpmedicare.plus>, <myaarpmedicare.page>, <myaarpmedicare.run>, <myaarpmedicare.link>, <myaarpmedicare.world>, <myaarpmedicare.fun>, <myaarpmedicare.bid>, <myaarpmedicare.center>, <myaarpmedicare.icu>, <myaarpmedicare.express>, <myaarpmedicare.family>, <myaarpmedicare.help>, <myaarpmedicare.mom>, <myaarpmedicare.news>, <myaarpmedicare.party>, <myaarpmedicare.red>, <myaarpmedicare.rip>, <myaarpmedicare.vin>, <myaarpmedicare.blue>, <myaarpmedicare.care>, and <myaarpmedicare.wiki> Domain Names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc, Namecheap, Inc., or Porkbun Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc, Namecheap, Inc., or Porkbun Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc, Namecheap, Inc., or Porkbun Llc 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 September 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 5, 2021 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@myaarpmedicare.xyz, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.live, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.health, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.shop, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.guide, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.bio, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.today, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.date, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.expert, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.review, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.reviews, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.fit, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.work, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.tips, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.fyi, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.life, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.vip, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.rocks, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.top, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.guru, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.ltd, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.onl, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.zone, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.win, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.clinic, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.kim, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.app, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.best, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.company, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.cool, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.one, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.blog, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.plus, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.page, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.run, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.link, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.world, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.fun, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.bid, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.center, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.icu, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.express, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.family, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.help, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.mom, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.news, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.party, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.red, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.rip, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.vin, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.blue, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.care, postmaster@myaarpmedicare.wiki. Also on September 15, 2021, the 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 11, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant points out that all of the Domain Names in the current dispute all have identical naming patterns adding in the words “my” and “medicare”, separated by Complainant’s AARP mark, all the domain names list Bangladesh and India, which are neighbouring countries as Respondent’s location, they were registered in large clusters between two registrars, with a few using a third registrar. The Complainant has classified the domain names into three groups depending on registrant details. The Domain Names feature similar content, similar contact email addresses and utilise the same registrant name in certain cases across groupings. Finally a few of the Domain Names redirect users to the websites utilising other domain names the subject of this Complaint. Having examined the evidence the Panel accepts the evidence presented by the Complainant and finds that it is more likely than not that the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations for AARP (registered, inter alia, in the USA for services to be provided to retired persons with first use recorded as 1958). It owns the domain name aarp.com.
One focus of Complainant’s services is helping its members understand the often complex process of applying for and receiving benefits under the government health program known as Medicare. Certain resources are devoted to this subject such as pages on the www.aarp.org website. Of particular relevance to the present case, Complainant partners with an insurance provider named United Healthcare to present a website dedicated to helping members find an appropriate Medicare plan as well as healthcare providers within the Medicare framework. This site may be reached through the domain name myaarpmedicare.com.
The Domain Names registered between 2018 and 2021 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. By incorporating the Complainant’s mark, in its entirety within the Domain Names and adding the words “my” and “Medicare”, the Respondent is seeking to make Internet users believe that they are a legitimate source of information from or about the Complainant. Adding the terms ‘my’ and ‘medicare’ and different gTLDs does not prevent said confusing similarity.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to use the Complainant’s AARP mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names.
The Respondent is using the Domain Names to redirect users to web sites that either purport to be blogs using the Complainant’s logo and so give the impression of association with the Complainant, but in fact contain competing pay per click links or to link to news aggregation sites or which do not resolve to active web sites. Respondent is using over fifty confusingly similar domain names to address its websites and achieve its true objective of collecting ad click revenue, harvesting user names and email addresses through “Leave a Comment” forms, or of otherwise diverting traffic from Complainant’s authorised www.myaarpmedicare.com site. These uses are not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent is intending to cause confusion on the Internet for commercial gain and disrupt the Complainant’s business in opportunistic bad faith and with actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business rights and services as shown by the use of the Complainant’s logo. Where inactive the holding of domain names containing a mark with a reputation is bad faith. The Respondent’s conduct shows a pattern of activity.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations for AARP (registered, inter alia, in the USA for services to be provided to retired persons with first use recorded as 1958). It owns the domain name aarp.com. Complainant partners with an insurance provider named United Healthcare to provide a website dedicated to helping members find an appropriate Medicare plan as well as healthcare providers within the Medicare framework. This site may be reached through the domain name myaarpmedicare.com.
The Domain Names registered between 2018 and 2021 point to sites purporting to be blogs using the Complainant’s logo but bearing pay per click links or point to news aggregator sites or do not resolve to active web sites.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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”).
The Domain Names consist of the Complainant’s AARP trade mark (registered in the USA for services provided to retired persons with first use recorded as 1958), the terms ‘my’ and ‘medicare’ and various gTLDs.
Adding the terms ‘my’ and ‘Medicare’ to the Complainant’s registered mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s mark which is still clearly recognisable in the Domain Names. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of other terms does not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).).
A gTLD is a necessary component of a domain name. It forms a functional role in the Domain Names and does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the AARP mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its AARP mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Use for pay per click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of .. domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
Nor does use for unrelated material such as news aggregators or for holding or parking pages where a Domain Name is not pointed to an active site. See U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”) and see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register Domain Names containing the Complainant’s AARP mark.
Use for pay per click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. In the opinion of the panelist the use made of a large number of the Domain Names in relation to the sites containing pay per click links are confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant, additionally as they use the Complainant’s logo. Accordingly, in relation to those sites the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those web sites or services offered on them likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links.
Use to point to external third party businesses such as news aggregators has also been held to be bad faith use by Panels under the UDRP. ; see Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (where the respondent was referring Internet traffic to a news site in competition with the complainant’s interests found to be bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). In relation to those of the Domain Names used for this purpose the Panel finds that this use is disruptive and is likely to be confusing Internet users for commercial gain.
Inactive use of a domain name containing a trade mark with a reputation may be an indication of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”). As such in relation of those of the Domain Names which do not point to active sites the Panel finds that this is disruptive of the Complainant’s business and acting in competition to its interests.
The Respondent has also registered a large number of Domain Names including the AARP mark of the Complainant sufficient to show a pattern of activity. See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were each registered and used in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <myaarpmedicare.xyz>, <myaarpmedicare.xyz>, <myaarpmedicare.live>, <myaarpmedicare.health>, <myaarpmedicare.shop>, <myaarpmedicare.guide>, <myaarpmedicare.bio>, <myaarpmedicare.today>, <myaarpmedicare.date>, <myaarpmedicare.expert>, <myaarpmedicare.review>, <myaarpmedicare.reviews>, <myaarpmedicare.fit>, <myaarpmedicare.work>, <myaarpmedicare.tips>, <myaarpmedicare.fyi>, <myaarpmedicare.life>, <myaarpmedicare.vip>, <myaarpmedicare.rocks>, <myaarpmedicare.top>, <myaarpmedicare.guru>, <myaarpmedicare.ltd>, <myaarpmedicare.onl>, <myaarpmedicare.zone>, <myaarpmedicare.win>, <myaarpmedicare.clinic>, <myaarpmedicare.kim>, <myaarpmedicare.app>, <myaarpmedicare.best>, <myaarpmedicare.company>, <myaarpmedicare.cool>, <myaarpmedicare.one>, <myaarpmedicare.blog>, <myaarpmedicare.plus>, <myaarpmedicare.page>, <myaarpmedicare.run>, <myaarpmedicare.link>, <myaarpmedicare.world>, <myaarpmedicare.fun>, <myaarpmedicare.bid>, <myaarpmedicare.center>, <myaarpmedicare.icu>, <myaarpmedicare.express>, <myaarpmedicare.family>, <myaarpmedicare.help>, <myaarpmedicare.mom>, <myaarpmedicare.news>, <myaarpmedicare.party>, <myaarpmedicare.red>, <myaarpmedicare.rip>, <myaarpmedicare.vin>, <myaarpmedicare.blue>, <myaarpmedicare.care>, and <myaarpmedicare.wiki> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page