Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v.
Azra Khan
Claim
Number: FA0306000162194
Complainant is Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
Chicago, Illinois, USA (“Complainant”) represented by William R. Chan. Respondent
is Azra Khan, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <bluecare.com>, registered with Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable
Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on June 12, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 16, 2003.
On
June 13, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <bluecare.com> is registered
with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve
domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
June 17, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 7, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@
bluecare.com
by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
July 14, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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."
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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <bluecare.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s family of marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <bluecare.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bluecare.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”), is an association of 42
independently operated local Blue Cross and Blue Shield Member Plans, which are
licensed by Complainant to provide prepaid healthcare and health insurance
services.
Complainant is
the registrant of two registrations for the BLUE CARE mark and one registration
for the WWW.BLUECARES.COM mark
(collectively Complainant’s “family of marks”) on the Principal Register. The registrations for the BLUE CARE marks
include United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Registration Nos.
1,961,619, registered on March 12, 1996 and 1,962,930, registered on March 19, 1996. Complainant’s registration for the WWW.BLUECARES.COM mark is USPTO Reg. No.
2,201,446, registered on November 3, 1998.
Complainant’s
family of marks have been extensively used, advertised and promoted throughout
the United States and internationally in connection with BCBSA, its Member
Plans and licensees and the services they render. In 2002, system-wide revenue derived from products and services
sold under the BCBSA family of marks is expected to surpass $160 billion.
Complainant has
used the BLUE CARE marks since at least as early as December 1988, and the WWW.BLUECARES.COM mark since at least as
early as June 1996. Currently, Complainant uses the BLUE CARE marks for a
variety of health care services.
Complainant also uses the WWW.BLUECARES.COM
mark to provide information services via a multi-user global computer network
primarily concerning comprehensive health care benefit programs and prepaid
financing and administration of medical, hospital and related health care
services.
On January 24,
2002, Respondent registered the <bluecare.com> domain name. Respondent is using the <bluecare.com>
domain name to divert Internet users to a web portal which triggers a pop-up
advertisiement for a gambling website.
The website associated with the disputed domain name also provides links
to various websites connected to online gambling, adult entertainment,
competing health insurance providers, a site that sells magazines relating to
health care, and other commercial websites.
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."
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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such
inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
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.
Complainant has
established rights in its family of marks through registration with the USPTO
and continuous use in commerce since at least as early as 1988. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA
117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered
marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired
secondary meaning”); see also Keppel
TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of
long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in
connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common
law).
Respondent’s <bluecare.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s BLUE CARE and WWW.BLUECARES.COM marks except for the
single “s” at the end of the latter mark.
The “www” prefix and the “.com” suffix are insufficient to distinguish
Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s family of marks. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s family of marks. See Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v.
Seocho , FA 103879 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the
letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall
impression of the mark); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because the
prefix "www" does not sufficiently differentiate the
<wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response in this dispute.
Thus, the Panel may accept as true all reasonable allegations and inferences
set forth in Complainant’s Complaint.
Furthermore, by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to
demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do
The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding
that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain name, the burden shifts to Respondent to
provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000)
(finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from
Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name because Respondent never submitted a Response or
provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
The WHOIS contact
information identifies Respondent as Azra Kahn, not as <bluecare.com>. Thus, the WHOIS information does not permit
an inference that Respondent is commonly known by the <bluecare.com>
domain name. Furthermore, Complainant
has not given Respondent permission or a license to use its family of
marks. Since there is no evidence
before the Panel indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain name, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information
implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one
factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie
de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where
Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license
or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent is
using the <bluecare.com> domain name to ensnare Internet users and
direct them to a website that links users to websites associated with online
gambling, adult entertainment, magazine sales and Complainant’s
competitors. Furthermore, the website
hosted at the disputed domain name subjects Internet users to unsolicited
pop-up advertisements and is a web portal for other sites. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or making a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards
a/k/a William Moore, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding
that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s marks to send Internet
users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to
competitors of Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services);
see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sony Corp. v. Domain
rajadomain@yahoo.com +1.415.0, FA 128701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2002)
(finding that Respondent’s use of its domain name in order to divert Internet
users to a website that offers links to adult orientated websites was not
considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy); see also
Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mahmoud Nadim, FA 127720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29,
2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to
redirect Internet users to a domain name featuring magazine subscriptions was
neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Wells Fargo &
Co. v. Party Night Inc. & Peter Carrington, FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum
March 18, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of
confusingly similar derivatives of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to divert
Internet users to websites featuring pop-up advertisements was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
There are
numerous UDRP decisions against Respondent holding that Respondent incorporated
the famous marks of others and directed Internet users to other websites for
commercial gain. Each of these
decisions against Respondent have resulted in orders transferring the disputed
domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
See Bank of America v. Kahn, FA 114324 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5,
2002); see also Gruner + Jahr
Printing & Publ’g. Co. v. Kahn, FA 114436 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11,
2002); see also CompUSA
Mgmt. Co. v. Kahn, FA 123921 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2002); see also
Bank of Am. Corp. v. Khan; FA
124515 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2002); see also Alltel Corp. v. Khan,
FA 124995 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002); see also Kmart of Mich., Inc. v.
Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002); see also Wells Fargo
Co. v. Khan, FA135009 (Jan. 13, 2003).
Typosquatting,
which is the practice of registering misspellings of well-known marks and then
linking the misspelled domain names to other websites for Respondent’s
commercial gain, is recognized as a bad faith use of a domain name under Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling
of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended
destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith”); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern
of registering misspellings of famous trademarks and names).
Respondent is a
well-known typosquatter. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used
the <bluecare.com> domain name in bad faith because it is
diverting Internet users who misspell Complainant’s well-known mark to
commercial websites for its commercial gain.
See Bank of Am. v. Kahn, FA 114324 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2002)
(finding that “Respondent uses the <banckofamerica.com> domain name to
divert unsuspecting Internet users who misspell “bank” to a website that offers
subscriptions to financial magazines.”); see also CompUSA Mgmt. Co. v. Kahn,
FA 123921 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2002) (finding that “Respondent is
diverting Internet users who mistype Complainant’s mark in the browser to
Respondent’s own website for Respondent’s commercial gain”); see also Bank
of Am. Corp. v.Khan; FA 124515 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2002) (finding
that “Respondent’s practice of ‘typosquatting’ has been recognized as a bad
faith use of a domain name under the UDRP”).
Furthermore,
it can be inferred that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s family of
marks when it registered the disputed domain name since the registered domain
name is a misspelling of Complainant’s family of marks. Registration of a domain name with knowledge
of Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration. See RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA
142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that Respondent’s
registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name, incorporating
Complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of Complainant’s rights
in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain name, evidencing bad
faith); see also Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6,
2003) (stating that “in typosquatting
cases, such as this one, it would be difficult for Respondent to prove to the
Panel that it did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive
MEDLINE mark when it registered the infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain
name”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <bluecare.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Date:
July 25, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page