Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA2112001978889
Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah E. Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hackenssackmeridianhealth.org>, registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 30, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 30, 2021.
On December 31, 2021, GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hackenssackmeridianhealth.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands 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 January 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 31, 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@hackenssackmeridianhealth.org. Also on January 10, 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 February 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant provides a full spectrum of life-enhancing care and services to create and sustain healthy, vibrant communities. Complainant has rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,318, Registered April 10, 2018). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds an additional “S” along with the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers hyperlinks related and unrelated to Complainant’s business.
iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent redirects Internet users to a webpage that offers hyperlinks related and unrelated to Complainant’s business. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith by being subject to multiple UDRP complaints. Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting by creating a typographical error in creating the domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark due to the use of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2019.
2. Complainant has established rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,318, Registered April 10, 2018).
3. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers hyperlinks related and unrelated to Complainant’s business.
4. Respondent has registered four (4) domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks.
5. A search of the Forum’s domain name dispute proceedings and decisions online database identified 160 cases in which Respondent is the listed respondent.
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 claims to have rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a domain name with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,318, Registered April 10, 2018). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <hackenssackmeridianhealth.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds an additional “S” along with the “.org” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a letter along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per 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 MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) (“The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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”).
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark or register domain names using Complainant’s 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 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). 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 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)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Zhichao Yang” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers hyperlinks related and unrelated to Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers hyperlinks to goods and services that compete or are unrelated to a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows services related to Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a webpage that offers hyperlinks related and unrelated to Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name that resolves to a webpage that offers services that compete against a complainant may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”). The Panel recalls that the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage shows services related to Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith by being subject to multiple UDRP complaints. Prior and current UDRP cases may be evidence that a respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services / Jinesh Shah / Whois Privacy Corp. / Domain Administratory / Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp, FA1408001576648 (Forum Jan. 12, 2015) (“The panel determines that Respondent’s documented history of adverse UDRP rulings, as well as Respondent’s multiple registrations relating to Complainant’s marks, are independently sufficient to constitute a pattern as described by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Therefore, the panel finds bad faith under the provision.”). Here, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered four (4) domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks. Complainant further argues that a search of the Forum’s domain name dispute proceedings and decisions online database identified 160 cases in which Zhichao Yang is the listed Respondent. The Panel determines that Respondent’s documented history of adverse UDRP rulings, as well as Respondent’s multiple registrations relating to Complainant’s marks constitute a pattern as described by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under the provision.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hackenssackmeridianhealth.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 9, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page