Availity, L.L.C. v. Anonymize, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2010001918191
Complainant is Availity, L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth G. Borland of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <availty.com>, registered with Epik Inc..
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 23, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 23, 2020.
On November 10, 2020, Epik Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <availty.com> domain name is registered with Epik Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Epik Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Epik Inc. 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 November 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 3, 2020 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@availty.com. Also on November 13, 2020, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <availty.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AVAILITY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <availty.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <availty.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Availity LLC, operates an information network in the field of healthcare. Complainant holds a registration for the AVAILITY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,667,172, registered Dec. 24, 2002).
Respondent registered the <availty.com> domain name on January 31, 2009, and uses it to host hyperlinks to websites operating in the same field as Complainant.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AVAILITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <availty.com> domain name uses Complainant’s mark and merely removes the letter “i” from the mark and adds the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter ‘y’ and spacing within the mark, and appends the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <availty.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AVAILITY mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <availty.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s AVAILITY mark. The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Anonymize Inc.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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.); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the <availty.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and instead hosts hyperlinks to websites operating in the same field as Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name to host commercial hyperlinks is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s website featuring hyperlinks to websites of other entities in health insurance and related fields, including competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <availty.com> domain name in bad faith to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its website hosting related third-party hyperlinks. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to display third-party commercial hyperlinks is evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name features websites in the health insurance field, including websites of Complainant’s direct competitors. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel agrees, noting that the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark with a single letter omitted, and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Under Armour, Inc. v. JEFF RANDALL, FA1410001585022 (Forum Nov. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s <unerarmour.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting of the complainant’s UNDER ARMOUR mark, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AVAILITY mark. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and may be shown by the entirety of circumstances surrounding the registration and use of a disputed domain name. See University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (“. . .the Panel infers Respondent’s actual knowledge here based on Respondent’s complete use of the PERIFACTS mark in the <perifacts.com> domain name to promote links related to the field of obstetrics, where Complainant’s mark is used.”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Complainant argues that Respondent could not have come up with the <availty.com> domain name out of thin air and must have based the domain name on the AVAILITY mark. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent directly competes with Complainant, and finds that this shows additional bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <availty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page