Lemonaid Health, Inc. v. John Lunde
Claim Number: FA2201001981449
Complainant is Lemonaid Health, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Steiner of Duane Morris LLP, California, USA. Respondent is John Lunde (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lemonaidhealth.shop>, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 21, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 21, 2022.
On January 23, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lemonaidhealth.shop> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 January 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 14, 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@lemonaidhealth.shop. Also on January 25, 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 16, 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 mobile web applications for medical consultancy services, pharmacy services, and medical services. Complainant has rights in the LEMONAID HEALTH mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,028,364, registered August 23, 2016). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEMONAID HEALTH mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the “.shop” 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 LEMONAID HEALTH mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LEMONAID HEALTH mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 30, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the LEMONAID HEALTH mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,028,364, registered August 23, 2016).
3. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
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 LEMONAID HEALTH mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark per policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant has provided the Panel with copies of its USPTO registrations for the LEMONAID HEALTH mark (e.g., Reg. No. 5,028,364, registered August 23, 2016). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <lemonaidhealth.shop> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEMONAID HEALTH mark. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the “.shop” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <mellosolar.com> domain name is substantively identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s MELLO SOLAR mark.”). 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 LEMONAID 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 “John Lunde” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the LEMONAID 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, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name may show that a respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that fails to resolve to an active webpage. 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 Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage which remains inactive.
The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i) Complainant was founded to bring more convenient, affordable health care to all Americans in 2013 and has since helped hundreds of thousands of patients get access to care from the comfort of their homes by its medical team licensed in all 50 states in the United States. Its clinical team is made up of physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners and registered nurses. And thus, Complainant’s mark is considered being known among consumers; and
ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lemonaidhealth.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page