UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. MM c/o M. Morgan
Claim Number: FA0802001152594
Complainant is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Timothy
M. Kenny, of Fulbright & Jaworski,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <unitedhealth.org>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
On February 20, 2008, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <unitedhealth.org> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 24, 2008 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received by e-mail on
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <unitedhealth.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITEDHEALTH marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <unitedhealth.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <unitedhealth.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. The deficient Response consisted of this single line: I have already indicated that I wish to transfer the name.
Complainant owns a family of well-known marks
with the root UNITEDHEALTH, such as UNITEDHEALTHCARE, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP and
UNITED HEALTH RX (“UNITEDHEALTH marks”).
Complainant began using the UNITEDHEALTHCARE mark as early as 1984 for
health care services, and holds 23 U. S. Trademark Registrations, and 25
additional registrations worldwide. It
appears that Respondent created the domain name <unitedhealth.org> on
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Complainant has provided the Panel
with evidence of the registration of its numerous UNITEDHEALTH marks. The Panel finds this is sufficient to
conclude Complainant has established rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Inertia 3D, FA
1118154 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <unitedhealth.org> domain name fully incorporates the root of Complainant’s marks with the mere addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org”, not considered relevant when evaluating whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <unitedhealth.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITEDHEALTH marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . .").
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that
Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <unitedhealth.org> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must
first make a prima facie case against
Respondent, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show evidence that it
does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays links to Complainant’s competitors who also provide health services. The Panel finds Respondent’s uses of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
Complainant contends that
Respondent is not commonly known as <unitedhealth.org>. There is no evidence in the WHOIS record that
Respondent is known as <unitedhealth.org>. Since Respondent has failed to present
evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly
known as <unitedhealth.org>
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA
139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <unitedhealth.org> domain name to
advertise competing financial websites, receiving profit by redirecting
Internet users to these competing websites.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is capable of creating
confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of the website that resolves from the disputed domain name. The panel in G.D. Searle & Co. v.
Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
In addition, previous panels have
found evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)
when competing products or services are advertised on the website that resolves
from the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name
to display links to competing financial services further demonstrates
registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S.
Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <unitedhealth.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 11, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum