Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health v. Robert Shettles
Claim Number: FA2010001918655
Complainant is Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health (“Complainant”), represented by Alexander J. Urbelis of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Robert Shettles (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 28, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 28, 2020.
On October 28, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 2, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 23, 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@unity-point.net, postmaster@unity-point.org. Also on November 2, 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 November 28, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health, operates hospitals, clinics, and home care services. Complainant has rights in the UNITYPOINT mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,589,201, registered on October 16, 2012). Respondent’s <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark because they merely insert a hyphen between the words “unity” and “point” and add the “.net” and “.org” generic top level domains (“gTLDs”) to form the disputed domain names.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the UNITYPOINT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use; rather, Respondent uses the Domain Names to feature pay-per-click advertisements.
Respondent registered and uses the <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> domain names. Respondent engages in typosquatting which is itself evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent has constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UNITYPOINT mark based on Complainant’s prominence in the healthcare industry.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the UNITYPOINT mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the UNITYPOINT mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,589,201, registered on October 16, 2012). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the UNITYPOINT mark as they each incorporate the entire mark and merely insert a hyphen between the words “unity” and “point” and add the “.net” and “.org” gTLDs. The addition of punctuation like hyphens and gTLDs to a mark does not negate any confusing similarity between disputed domain names and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Keeler, D2000-0206 (WIPO May 16, 2000) (finding “[t]he use of hyphens ‘columbia-sports-wear-company’ in one of the Respondent's domain names in issue is insufficient to render it different to the trade mark COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UNITYPOINT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Robert Shettles” as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Names are presently inactive but prior to the commencement of proceedings resolved to websites featuring pay-per-click links to third party websites, some of which purport to offer competing goods (namely hospital health clinics) to Complainant. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, June 25, 2020 and October 21, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark. Each of the Domain Names resolves to a website that contains pay-per-click links, some of which relate to health care clinics, part of the Complainant’s business. Furthermore it is improbable that a party would register two domain names that almost identical to Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark in the absence of any awareness of this mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s UNITYPOINT Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”).
The Panel finds 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 <unity-point.net> and <unity-point.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: November 30, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page