national arbitration forum

DECISION

Medica Health Plans v. David A. Steenblock, D.O., Inc.

Claim Number: FA1212001475649

PARTIES

Complainant is Medica Health Plans (“Complainant”), represented by Benjamin P. Freedland of Leonard, Street and Deinard, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is David A. Steenblock, D.O., Inc. (“Respondent”), California, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <clubmedica.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

PANEL

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 A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 12, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 12, 2012.

On December 13, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <clubmedica.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 December 13, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2013 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@clubmedica.com. Also on December 13, 2012, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On January 9, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Medica Health Plans, is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Complainant is both an insurance company and a managed care organization. Complainant offers substantial services to its members and providers over the Internet. Complainant uses multiple domain names as portals to its Internet services, including <medica.com>, <myMedica.com>, <brokerMedica.com>, <MedicaBenefits.com>, <MedicaCoverage.com>, <MedicaDirect.com>, and <MedicaEasyquote.com>.
Complainant owns and shows evidence of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MEDICA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,761,828, registered March 30, 1993).
Respondent’s <clubmedica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDICA mark as it consists of Complainant’s entire word mark and adds the generic or descriptive element “club.”
Medica operates like a club in its capacity as an insurance company. Individuals, couples and families who purchase health insurance are called Members of a Medica health plan. When an employer purchases health insurance for its employees, all eligible employees become Members of the Medica plan. Members interact with Medica by using their membership information to log in to Mymedica.com, a separate website where Members can view claims, find a doctor, print a new identification card, look up health topics, and consult a nurse via an online chat. Individuals, couples, families and eligible employees join Medica and pay premiums in exchange for several advantages including, but not limited to, health insurance coverage. Medica also operates like a club in its capacity as a managed care organization. Health providers that join the Medica Provider Network are referred to as Medica Providers. Clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, personal care assistance agencies and others become Medica Providers so they can offer health services for Medica Members. Medica Providers also receive additional benefits if they join the Medica Provider Network. For example, Medica Providers can subscribe to a monthly electronic newsletter called Medica Connections® and receive administrative and clinical training from the Medica Provider College program. Additionally, Medica offers numerous clinical and quality programs to Medica Providers to support delivering high-quality, accessible health care.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

i. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

ii. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to other websites.

Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

i. Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business because Respondent is a competitor and operates in the same healthcare space.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the <clubmedica.com> domain name on August 19, 2009.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

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(e), 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 Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant, Medica Health Plans, contends that it is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Complainant asserts that it is both an insurance company and a managed care organization. Complainant states that it offers substantial services to its members and providers over the Internet. Complainant contends that it uses multiple domain names as portals to its Internet services, including <medica.com>, <myMedica.com>, <brokerMedica.com>, <MedicaBenefits.com>, <MedicaCoverage.com>, <MedicaDirect.com>, and <MedicaEasyquote.com>. Complainant asserts and shows that it owns trademark registrations with the USPTO for the MEDICA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,761,828, registered March 30, 1993). The Panel notes that Respondent appears to reside within the United States. Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant’s registration of the MEDICA mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

Complainant contends that Respondent’s <clubmedica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDICA mark as it consists of Complainant’s entire word mark and adds the generic or descriptive element “club.” The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that the word “club” is descriptive of its services under its mark and does not distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from said mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <clubmedica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDICA mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “David A. Steenblock, D.O., Inc.” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that Respondent has not submitted any evidence showing that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to other websites which operate in the same healthcare space. Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to offer its own goods or services. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website for “Stem Cell Doctors.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to other websites is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademark registration in light of its incorporation of the entire MEDICA mark into its domain name and in light of Respondent’s competing use of the resolving website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered this domain name in bad faith.

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business because Respondent is a competitor and operates in the same healthcare field. Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name is used to redirect Internet users to a website for a company purporting to operate in the healthcare field. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website for “Stem Cell Doctors.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to link to a competing website disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).

Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <clubmedica.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

David A. Einhorn, Panelist

Dated: February 7, 2013