Premier Healthcare Alliance, LP v. chhamaka chakka / chakkas
Claim Number: FA2111001972400
Complainant is Premier Healthcare Alliance, LP (“Complainant”), represented by J. Mark Wilson of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is chhamaka chakka / chakkas (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <premierinc.us>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 8, 2021.
On November 8, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <premierinc.us> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 9, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 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@premierinc.us. Also on November 9, 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 December 6, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Premier Healthcare Alliance, LP, provides health care industry-related services.
Complainant has rights in the PREMIER mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <premierinc.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMIER mark since it merely adds the term “inc” and the “.us” county code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <premierinc.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its PREMIER mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it the domain name addresses a parked page.
Respondent registered or uses the <premierinc.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to phish for financial information via emails. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PREMIER mark based on Respondent’s phishing activities.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the PREMIER trademark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its PREMIER trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to phish for financial information via emails and to host a parking page.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its PREMIER trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the PREMIER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <premierinc.us> domain name contains Complainant’s PREMIER trademark followed by the descriptive term “inc” with all followed by top-level domain name “.us.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <premierinc.us> domain name from the Complainant’s PREMIER trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <premierinc.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PREMIER trademark. See Discovery, Inc. v. Domain Admin / E-Promote, FA 1892784 (Forum May 19, 2020) (“The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DISCOVERY Mark because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the DISCOVERY Mark in its entirety and merely adds the dictionary term ‘inc.’ (an abbreviation for incorporated or incorporation), followed by the gTLD ‘.com’.”); see also, CDW Computer Ctrs., Inc. v. The Joy Co., FA 114463 (Forum July 25, 2002) (finding that the addition of the ccTLD “.us” is inconsequential and does not defeat a claim of confusing similarity).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because the respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
The WHOIS information for <premierinc.us> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “chhamaka chakka / chakkas” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the <premierinc.us> domain name or by PREMIER. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <premierinc.us> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Respondent uses the <premierinc.us> domain name to address a parked webpage. Respondent’s use the of the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Respondent’s failure to associate content with its disputed domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also, Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Likewise, Respondent’s use of the domain name to host email in furtherance of a phishing scheme is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above, Respondent registered and uses the <premierinc.us> domain name to host email that is ultimately used to phish for third party financial information. Such use of the domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Airbnb, Inc. v. JAMES GRANT, FA1760182 (Forum Dec. 28, 2017) (“Using a misleading email address to defraud unwary customers certainly constitutes bad faith.”); see also, Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1507001629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process).
Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PREMIER mark when it registered <premierinc.us> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of email hosted at <premierinc.us> to pose as an employee of Complainant in furtherance of fraud. Respondent’s registration and use the confusingly similar <premierinc.us> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name additionally shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <premierinc.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: December 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page