Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2003001890137
Complainant is Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health ("Complainant"), represented by Justin B. Perri of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <unitypoint.online>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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 March 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 27, 2020.
On March 29, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <unitypoint.online> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 March 31, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2020 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@unitypoint.online. Also on March 31, 2020, 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 April 26, 2020, 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 operates a network of hospitals, clinics, and home care services in the United States, with more than 30,000 employees in three states. Complainant uses UNITYPOINT and UNITYPOINT HEALTH in connection with its services and owns corresponding U.S. trademark registrations issued in 2014.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <unitypoint.online> in March 2020. The domain name is being used for what Complainant asserts is a fake shopping platform that attempts to collect sensitive personal information from users. Complainant states that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its marks, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <unitypoint.online> is identical and confusingly similar to its UNITYPOINT 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <unitypoint.online> incorporates Complainant's registered UNITYPOINT trademark, adding only the ".online" top-level domain. The top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of determining identicality paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Keolis v. Frederic Cliche, D2020-0081 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2020) (finding <keolis.online> identical to KEOLIS); HDR Global Trading Ltd. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1849606 (Forum July 29, 2019) (finding <bitmex.capital> identical to BITMEX). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
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 corresponds to Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for an unrelated and apparently fraudulent website. Such use is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, FA 1727609 (Forum May 16, 2017) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use of domain name for apparent purpose of collecting personal information from Internet users).
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)(iv) of the Policy, 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 corresponding to Complainant’s registered trademark and has not offered any alternative explanation for its selection of that name. Respondent used a privacy registration service to register the domain name, and is using it for what appears to be a fraudulent website that attempts to collect personal information from users. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., United States Steel Corp. v. Karl Shorb / Scab Inc, FA 1842174 (Forum June 10, 2019) (inferring bad faith where domain name incorporating trademark was registered through privacy registration service and respondent failed to explain choice of name or intended use); Keolis v. Frederic Cliche, supra (inferring bad faith registration of domain name identical to trademark in absence of plausible explanation); Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, supra (finding bad faith where domain name similar to trademark was used to collect personal information from Internet users). 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 <unitypoint.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page