UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated v. MM c/o M. Morgan
Claim Number: FA0802001152594
PARTIES
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.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on
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 postmaster@unitedhealth.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received by e-mail on
On
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
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.
FINDINGS
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
DISCUSSION
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
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.
Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
DECISION
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