Mary Washington Healthcare v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2112001978772
Complainant is Mary Washington Healthcare (“Complainant”), represented by Justin B. Perri of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <marywashingtonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhealhcare.com>, <marywashinghealthcar.com>, <marywashingronhealthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhospitsal.com>, <wwwmarywashinton.com>, <marywashintonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelpcare.com>, <marywashingtonheakthcate.com>, <marywashiingtonhealthcare.com>, <marywashintonhealthcar.com>, <marywashingtohhealthcare.com>, <marywashintgonhealthcare.com>, and <marywashingtonhhealthcare.com> registered with NameCheap, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 30, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 30, 2021.
On December 30, 2021 and December 31, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC, respectively confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <marywashingtonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhealhcare.com>, <marywashinghealthcar.com>, <marywashingronhealthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhospitsal.com>, <wwwmarywashinton.com>, <marywashintonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelpcare.com>, <marywashingtonheakthcate.com>, <marywashiingtonhealthcare.com>, <marywashintonhealthcar.com>, <marywashingtohhealthcare.com>, <marywashintgonhealthcare.com>, and <marywashingtonhhealthcare.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreements 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 January 5, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 25, 2022 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@marywashingtonheathcare.com, postmaster@marywashingtonhelthcare.com, postmaster@marywashingtonhealhcare.com, postmaster@marywashinghealthcar.com, postmaster@marywashingronhealthcare.com, postmaster@marywashingtonhospitsal.com, postmaster@wwwmarywashinton.com, postmaster@marywashintonheathcare.com, postmaster@marywashingtonhelpcare.com, postmaster@marywashingtonheakthcate.com, postmaster@marywashiingtonhealthcare.com, postmaster@marywashintonhealthcar.com, postmaster@marywashingtohhealthcare.com, postmaster@marywashintgonhealthcare.com, and postmaster@marywashingtonhhealthcare.com. Also on January 5, 2022, 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 January 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has submitted that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceeding has been properly instituted because the disputed domain names are all registered by the same domain name holder within the meaning of Rule 3(c).
Complainant contends that there are clear indications that the domain names at issue are under common control of a single person or entity and are therefore ripe for consolidation. First, the domain names are registered (a) in the same TLD (.com), (b) in several cases within minutes of each other, by (c) an individual (Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico) with the same address and phone number. Secondly, these domains are typosquats on the same healthcare institution. Each of the domain names is a domain registration that swaps out or omits a single letter of the domain name. Thirdly, DNS data demonstrates that all of these domain names share the same mail server (mail.h-email.net) and name server (panamans.com).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. The proceeding has thus been instituted properly and may go forward on that basis. It is also appropriate in all the circumstances that the proceedings should be consolidated and the Panel makes that order.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions:
Complainant, Mary Washington Healthcare, owns and operates various healthcare facilities. Complainant asserts common law rights in the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark based upon the mark’s inherently distinctive nature, derived from Complainant’s providing healthcare services since 1899. Respondent’s <marywashingtonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhealhcare.com>, <marywashinghealthcar.com>, <marywashingronhealthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhospitsal.com>, <wwwmarywashinton.com>, <marywashintonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelpcare.com>, <marywashingtonheakthcate.com>, <marywashiingtonhealthcare.com>, <marywashintonhealthcar.com>, <marywashingtohhealthcare.com>, <marywashintgonhealthcare.com>, and <marywashingtonhhealthcare.com> domain names, herein referred to as “the disputed domain names”, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they each contain the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark in its entirety, differing only slightly. All of these domain names remove the spaces from the mark and add a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Most of the disputed domain names differ in the addition, removal, substitution, or transposition of no more than two letters with regards to the mark in order to engage in typosquatting.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names redirect to pay-per-click advertising, surveys, browser extension downloads, and redirection to other websites, some of which appear to be malware, or are for sale.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The disputed domain names constitute typosquatting, and resolve to pay-per-click advertising, browser redirects, and malware. The disputed domain names’ resolving webpages contain identical text, including a notable typographical error, indicating a pattern of abusive and bad faith conduct.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that owns and operates various healthcare facilities.
2. Complainant has established its common law trademark rights to the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark based upon the mark’s inherently distinctive nature, derived from Complainant’s providing healthcare services since 1899.
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names during the period from January 28, 2021, to February 5, 2021.
4. Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to resolve to pay-per-click advertising, surveys, browser extension downloads, and redirection to other websites, some of which appear to be malware, or are for sale.
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 names registered by Respondent are 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 names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are 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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has common law rights in the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark. A Complainant does not need to own a registered trademark to establish its standing to file a complaint under the Policy and prior to the registration of the relevant domain name if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Psyonix Inc. v. robert gray / notpsyonix, FA 1759780 (Forum Jan. 3, 2018) (“Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to own a trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”); see also Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark).
Complainant submits the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark has become a distinctive identifier because Complainant first established a hospital by that name in 1899. Complainant’s operation has since expanded beyond the scope of the original hospital. When a name is used in a long period as the name of a business and grows in recognizability to the extent that the name is identified with the business, it gains a secondary meaning for the purposes of the Policy, thus establishing common law rights. See James v. Demand Domains, FA 1106240 (Forum Dec. 27, 2007) (“The AMI JAMES mark has become distinct through Complainant’s use and exposure of the mark in the marketplace and through use of the mark in connection with Complainant’s television show, clothing line, and tattoo shop for over seventeen years.”). Here, Complainant has provided evidence of the mark’s recognizability in the form of screenshots of the Google search results for “Mary Washington” (displaying results for the mother of George Washington, the University of Washington, and Complainant) and for “Mary Washington Healthcare” (displaying results for Complainant alone). See Compl. Exs. 2, 3. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as follows for various reasons. First, all of the disputed domain names contain Complainant’s mark, merely removing the spaces between the words. Secondly, the disputed domain names typosquat as follows:
<marywashingtonheathcare.com> - omission of the letter “L”
<marywashingtonhelthcare.com> - omission of the letter “A”
<marywashingtonhealhcare.com> - omission of the letter “T”
<marywashinghealthcar.com> - omission of the letter “E”
<marywashingronhealthcare.com> - substitution of the letter “R” in place of the letter “T”
<marywashingtonhospitsal.com> - addition of the letter “S”
<wwwmarywashinton.com> - addition of the prefix “WWW” and omission of the letter “G”
<marywashintonheathcare.com> - omission of the letters “G” and “L”
<marywashingtonhelpcare.com> - replacing the word “HEALTH” with “HELP”
<marywashingtonheakthcate.com> - substitution of the letter “K” for the letter “L”, and the letter “T” for the letter “R”
<marywashiingtonhealthcare.com> - addition of the letter “I”
<marywashintonhealthcar.com> - omission of the letters “G” and “E”
<marywashingtohhealthcare.com> - substitution of the letter “H” for the letter “N”
<marywashintgonhealthcare.com> - transposition of the letters “G” and “T”
<marywashingtonhhealthcare.com> - addition of the letter “H”
The addition of the prefix “WWW” does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Paul Taylor, FA 1714579 (Forum Mar. 14, 2017) (“Similarly, addition of the letters “www” to the beginning of a mark in order to from a domain name does not distinguish the domain name for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis for confusing similarity.”). Additionally the addition or deletion of letters does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klein Tools, Inc. v. chenxinqi, FA 1617328 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding that the <klentools.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the KLEIN TOOLS mark as it contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely omits the letter “l” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)); see also Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’).
The elimination of spaces and addition of a gTLD also do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Vince Andrich v. AnonymousSpeech AnonymousSpeech, FA 1406333 (Forum Oct. 26, 2011) (finding confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as “Respondent’s <vinceandrich.net> domain name is composed of Complainant’s mark, without the space between words, combined with the gTLD “.net.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s VINCE ANDRICH mark.”).
For the above reasons, the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a)Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark and to use it in its domain names, making only minor spelling alterations to the mark when incorporating it into the domain names;
(b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names during the period from January 28, 2021, to February 5, 2021;
(c) Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to resolve to pay-per-click advertising, surveys, browser extension downloads, and redirection to other websites, some of which appear to be malware, or are for sale;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Complainant licensed or authorized Respondent to use the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as “Carolina Rodrigues.” See Registrar Verification Emails. Furthermore, Complainant submits it did not authorize Respondent to use the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names are for sale, resolve to pay-per-click advertising, surveys, browser extension downloads, and redirects to other websites, some of which appear to contain malware, and some of the disputed domain names do not resolve to active webpages. A disputed domain name being listed for sale does not convey rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Resolving parked page advertises the sale of the domain name with the message ‘Would you like to buy this domain?’ The Panel accepts this offer as demonstrative of Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name, and finds that such behavior provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Huang Jia Lin, FA1504001614086 (Forum May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”);
(g) The presence of pay-per-click advertisements on a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage does not convey rights or legitimate interests in the domain name 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.”);
(h) Using a disputed domain name to redirect to a site which attempts to install malware does not convey rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”);
(i) Complainant has attached screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages, demonstrating the above-mentioned features. See Compl. Ex. 5. Thus, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent has failed to use the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.
As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <marywashingtonhospitsal.com> and <wwwmarywashinton.com> domain names in bad faith because their resolving webpages display an attempt to sell the domain names. Mere failure to make an active use of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale. See loanDepot.com, LLC v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1786282 (Forum June 18, 2018) Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that mere failure to make an active use of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale); see also 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).”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the <marywashingtonhospitsal.com> and <wwwmarywashinton.com> domain names’ resolving webpages, showing offers of sale. See Compl. Ex. F. Thus, the Panel finds Complainant registered and uses the <marywashingtonhospitsal.com> and <wwwmarywashinton.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Secondly, Complainant submits Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because it registered fifteen domain names infringing on Complainant’s mark within two weeks. Registration of multiple domain names in a single case may evince bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA1504001615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>,<radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant’s mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Here, Complainant has provided evidence of the disputed domain names’ dates of registration within their WHOIS information. See Compl. Ex. 4. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Thirdly, Complainant submits Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because they constitute typosquatting. Typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”); see also Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). Thus, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Fourthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the MARY WASHINGTON HEALTHCARE mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marywashingtonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhealhcare.com>, <marywashinghealthcar.com>, <marywashingronhealthcare.com>, <marywashingtonhospitsal.com>, <wwwmarywashinton.com>, <marywashintonheathcare.com>, <marywashingtonhelpcare.com>, <marywashingtonheakthcate.com>, <marywashiingtonhealthcare.com>, <marywashintonhealthcar.com>, <marywashingtohhealthcare.com>, <marywashintgonhealthcare.com>, and <marywashingtonhhealthcare.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC,
Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page