Team Health, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2202001984608
Complainant is Team Health, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Keaton H. Osborne of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <payteamhelth.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 16, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 16, 2022.
On February 16, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <payteamhelth.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 February 21, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 14, 2022 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@payteamhelth.com. Also on February 21, 2022, 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 March18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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, Team Health, LLC, provides hospital management, staffing, and medical billing services. Complainant has rights in the TEAM HEALTH mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,489,975, registered Sep. 18, 2001). The <payteamhelth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent has incorporated the entire mark with a slight misspelling and added the descriptive word “pay” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”). Moreover, the disputed domain name is similar to domain names which previous Panels found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <payteamhelth.com> domain because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain resolves to a parked webpage.
Respondent has registered and uses the <payteamhelth.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to host parked links. In addition, Respondent engages in typosquatting and has a history of UDRP cases where it was found to use bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Team Health, LLC, provides hospital management, staffing, and medical billing services. Complainant has rights in the TEAM HEALTH mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,489,975, registered Sep. 18, 2001). The <payteamhelth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered the <payteamhelth.com> domain name on December 14, 2021.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <payteamhelth.com> domain. Respondent uses the disputed domain to resolve to a parked webpage hosting links.
Respondent has registered and uses the <payteamhelth.com> domain name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the TEAM HEALTH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also Team Health, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1969551 (Forum Nov. 22, 2021) (finding payteamhealth.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark).
The <payteamhelth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent has incorporated the entire mark with a slight misspelling, eliminated the space in the mark, and added a descriptive word and a gTLD. Domain names which incorporate the entire mark, even with a slight misspelling, are usually considered confusingly similar, while deleting spaces and adding a gTLD generally creates no distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter ‘y’ and spacing within the mark, and appends the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). The addition of the word “pay” adds to the confusing similarity as it references Complainant’s medical billing services. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Furthermore, “the confusing similarity may further be heightened given the fact that <payteamhelth.com> domain name is essentially identical to Complainant’s webpage <pay.teamhealth.com>, where it operates a bill payment portal.” Team Health, v. LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Electronico, FA 1969545 (Forum Nov. 30, 2021).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <payteamhelth.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not associated with Complainant or authorized to use Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark. When no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the guardair.com domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may demonstrate the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Team Health, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1878451 (Forum Feb. 10, 2020) (finding that a respondent had no rights under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) when the complainant did not authorize respondent to use complainant’s mark and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name). Here, there is no evidence in the WHOIS information to suggest that Respondent is known by <payteamhelth.com> and no information suggests Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TEAM HEALTH mark. Rather, the WHOIS information lists the registrant of the domain as “Carolina Rodrigues/Fundacion Comercio Electronico.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent does not use the <payteamhelth.com> domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), past panels have found no bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, where the domain resolves to a parked page. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Here, the disputed domain’s resolving webpage is used to host links which advertise goods and services related to Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent registered and uses the <payteamhelth.com> domain in bad faith per policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), because it has a history of bad faith registration and use. A history of negative UDRP decisions is evidence of a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants). Here, Respondent has a history of multiple negative UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered and used a domain in bad faith.
Further, Respondent registered and uses the <payteamhelth.com> domain in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because it registered and uses the domain to host parked links related to Complainant. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Here, Respondent’s disputed domain name is not be sufficiently distinct from Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark and is also essentially identical to Complainant’s webpage <pay.teamhealth.com>. The related/competing parked links on the disputed domain name’s resolving website are further evidence that Respondent is attempting to lure confused consumers to its domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the <payteamhelth.com> domain name also shows bad faith. The links on Respondent’s webpage relate to medical insurance plans. The domain name appears to be intentionally confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and domain name, with the intent to divert Internet users away from Complainant’s bill payment website. Particularly, the disputed domain name appears to be used to deceive Complainant’s customers into clicking on links the customers are led to believe are associated with Complainant and its bill pay services. The registration of “a disputed domain name to host links to services in competition with complainant is evidence of bad faith under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).” Team Health, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1878451 (Forum Feb. 10, 2020) (Respondent registered <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names in bad faith, as Respondent displays links to services related to Complainant’s business).
Finally, Respondent registered and uses the <payteamhelth.com> domain name in bad faith because it engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting, or capitalizing on slight misspellings between the disputed domain name and a mark or a Complainant’s actual domain name, is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) See LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Here, in the disputed domain name, Respondent has omitted the letter “a” from Complainant’s mark and omitted the periods found in Complainant’s legitimate domain <pay.teamhealth.com>, taking advantage of internet users who may attempt to reach Complainant’s domain. See also, Team Health, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1878451 (Forum Feb. 10, 2020) (respondent engaged in typosquatting and, thus acted in bad faith, “by purposely misspelling the word “benefits” in the <teamhealthbenifits.com> and <teamhealthbenfits.com> domain names). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <payteamhelth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page