DECISION

 

New York Quality Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Fidelis Care v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd

Claim Number: FA1912001873745

 

PARTIES

Complainant is New York Quality Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Fidelis Care ("Complainant"), represented by Peter T Busch of Leason Ellis LLP, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <fideliscares.org>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.

 

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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 4, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2019.

 

On December 9, 2019, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <fideliscares.org> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 10, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 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@fideliscares.org. Also on December 10, 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 January 2, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is an insurance provider that coordinates health insurance plan services for more than 1.7 million children and adults. Complainant uses the domain name <fideliscare.org> and the trademarks FIDELIS and FIDELIS CARE in connection with these services. Complainant and its parent company own U.S. trademark registrations for both marks, and assert common law rights in both marks based upon continuous use in commerce since at least as early as 1993.

 

The disputed domain name <fideliscares.org> was registered in April 2007. The domain name registration is currently held in Respondent's name. The domain name resolves to a parked page consisting of links to third-party websites offering health care services that compete with those offered by Complainant; many of the links include FIDELIS in the anchor text. Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its marks and that there is no direct affiliation between the parties.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <fideliscares.org> is confusingly similar to its FIDELIS and FIDELIS CARES marks; 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.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

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(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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <fideliscares.org> incorporates Complainant's registered FIDELIS and FIDELIS CARE trademarks, adding the generic term "cares" to the former and omitting the space and adding the letter "s" to the latter, and appending the ".org" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., New York Quality Healthcare Corp. d/b/a Fidelis Care v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1852792 (Forum Aug. 24, 2019) (finding <fidaliscare.org>, <fidelascare.org>, and <ffideliscare.org> confusingly similar to FIDELIS CARE); Time Warner, Inc. v. The Real South c/o Joseph Rollins, FA 1230674 (Forum Dec. 17, 2008) (finding <cnncares.org>, <aolcares.org>, <timewarnercares.org>, <thewbcares.org>, and <wbcares.org> confusingly similar to CNN, AOL, TIME WARNER, and THE WB). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 marks without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to display what presumably are pay-per-click links, including links to competitors of Complainant. Such use is unlikely to give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org, FA 1861548 (Forum Oct. 5, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in 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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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) 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 that corresponds to a typographical variation on Complainant's domain name and marks, and is using it to display links to competitors of Complainant, presumably for Respondent's commercial gain, in an obvious instance of typosquatting. Respondent's actions are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the provisions of the Policy cited above. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: January 13, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page