Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. David Czinczenheim
Claim Number: FA2306002048558
Complainant is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth G. Borland of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is David Czinczenheim (“Respondent”), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guidewellfinancial.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with DomainSails.net LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2023; Forum received payment on June 12, 2023.
On June 14, 2023, DomainSails.net LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guidewellfinancial.com> Domain Name is registered with DomainSails.net LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DomainSails.net LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DomainSails.net 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 June 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 5, 2023 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@guidewellfinancial.com. Also on June 15, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 11, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
The Complainant is the owner of the mark GUIDEWELL registered, inter alia, in the USA for heathcare information related services which has financial aspects with first use recorded as 2011.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been offered for sale generally for 3499 Euros, a sum well in excess of the costs of registration of the Domain Name which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.
Offering the Domain Name for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket registration costs demonstrates the Respondent’s primary intention behind registering the Domain Name is to sell the Domain Name for profit and is bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark GUIDEWELL registered, inter alia, in the USA for heathcare information related services which has financial aspects with first use recorded as 2011.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been offered for sale generally for 3499 Euros.
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”).
The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s GUIDEWELL mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for healthcare information related services including financial aspects with first use recorded as 2011), the generic term ‘financial’ and the gTLD .com.
The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016)(Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4 (a) (i).) Accordingly the addition of the generic terms ‘financial’ and the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark with a reputation has been offered for sale for a sum well in excess of registration costs which appears to be based on the increased value due to recognition and goodwill in the Complainant’s mark and therefore is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015).
The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark with a reputation has been offered for sale generally for a sum in excess of costs of registration of the Domain Name. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”)
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of sale for profit due to the value of the recognition of the Complainant’s mark and its goodwill and that the Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under s4 (b)(i).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <guidewellfinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Dated: July 12, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page