Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Christopher Carvalho
Claim Number: FA2205001997313
Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah E. Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Illinois. Respondent is Christopher Carvalho (“Respondent”), New York.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 20, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 20, 2022.
On May 21, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> 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 May 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 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@hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org. Also on May 27, 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 June 27, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a New Jersey-based healthcare company.
Complainant claims rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The at-issue domain name <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> is confusingly similar because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark differing only through the addition of the geographic term “nj” and the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name in an attempt to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scam.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scam. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH.
Complainant’s has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of fraud.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for its HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of 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)).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces, followed by the geographical descriptor “nj” (New Jersey), with all followed by the “.org” top level domain name. The differences between <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> and Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”).
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 the at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue 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 at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Christopher Carvalho” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by either the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name or by HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent uses the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer via email hosted by the confusingly similar domain name. Ultimately, the bogus email directs third-parties who mistakenly believe they are dealing with Complainant through its CEO, to send merchandise to on account at an address actually controlled by Respondent. Respondent’s use of <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> to pass off as Complainant in support of a scheme to swindle internet users indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”)
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of swindling third parties is disruptive to Complainant’s business and shows that Respondent is trading off Complainant’s trademark to gather ill-gotten gain. Such use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also, Google Inc. v. Domain Admin, FA 1502001605239 (Forum Mar. 22, 2015) (finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant’s trademark suggests Respondent’s bad faith).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark when it registered <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and swindle third parties as discussed above. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hackensackmeridianhealthnj.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 27, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page