Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. v. Javier Velez
Claim Number: FA1901001825450
Complainant is Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Caroline Chicoine of HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Javier Velez ("Respondent"), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <expressscriptinc.com>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 16, 2019; the Forum received payment on January 16, 2019.
On January 17, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <expressscriptinc.com> 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 ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On January 17, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 2019 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@expressscriptinc.com. Also on January 17, 2019, 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 February 11, 2019, 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 provides pharmacy benefit management services and related products and services. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the EXPRESS SCRIPTS marks in connection with these services since at least as early as 1986. Complainant owns numerous U.S. trademark registrations for EXPRESS SCRIPTS and related marks, and also owns rights in the mark in various other countries. In 2018, Complainant provided services to roughly 3,000 business clients and more than 100 million individuals in North America.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <expressscriptinc.com> in December 2018. Complainant states that it has no relationship with Respondent; that it and has never given Respondent a license, permission, or authorization to use the EXPRESS SCRIPTS mark; and that Respondent is not commonly known by any name incorporating the mark. Complainant states further that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent phishing campaign. Complainant provides evidence of an email message that uses the domain name to impersonate a representative of Complainant, soliciting a business relationship and presumably seeking the recipient's personal or financial information.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <expressscriptinc.com> is confusingly similar to its EXPRESS SCRIPTS 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.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Management, Inc. v. Webnet-Marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.").
The disputed domain name <expressscriptinc.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered EXPRESS SCRIPTS trademark, omitting the space and the terminal letter "S" and appending the generic abbreviation "Inc" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Priced Kim, FA 1780320 (Forum Apr. 29, 2018) (finding <commscopesinc.com> confusingly similar to COMMSCOPE; Express Scripts, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1656487 (Forum Apr. 1, 2016) (finding <express-scriptusa.com> confusingly similar to EXPRESS SCRIPTS). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.
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 Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use clearly does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Vitas Hospice Services, L.L.C. v. Lance Beauford, FA 1741765 (Forum Aug. 23, 2017) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).
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)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." 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 registered a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, and is using it to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Vitas Hospice Services, L.L.C. v. Lance Beauford, supra (finding bad faith under similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <expressscriptinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 18, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page