Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Randy Moore
Claim Number: FA2106001950410
Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah E Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Randy Moore (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 June 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 9, 2021.
On June 11, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2021 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@hackensacksmeridianhealth.org. Also on June 16, 2021, 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 July 12, 2021, 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 <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is a network of healthcare providers in the state of New Jersey and surrounding areas. Complainant holds a registration for the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 5,441,318 registered April 10, 2018).
Respondent registered the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name on March 27, 2021, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark based upon registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name contains the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark in its entirety and merely adds the letter “s” and the “.org” gTLD. The addition of a letter and gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PathAdvantage Associated v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1625731 (Forum July 23, 2015) (holding that the <pathadvantages.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the PATHADVANTAGE trademark because the domain name “merely adds the letter ‘s’ to Complainant’s mark”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Randy Moore.” 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 Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to a blank page and is used for a fraudulent phishing scam through email. Inactively holding a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in emails to phish for users’ personal information also does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name resolving to a blank page, as well as a copy of an email showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in an email phishing expedition. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the domain to pass off as Complainant in emails as part of a phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in emails in order to engage in phishing is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s inactive holding of the <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name is also evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sept. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent engaged in typosquatting by adding an “s” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith pursuant to 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)).
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 <hackensacksmeridianhealth.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page