McLaren Health Plan, Inc. v. McLaren Health Plan c/o Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA0811001232792
Complainant is McLaren Health Plan, Inc., represented by Steven
L. Permut, of Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <mclarenhealthplan.com>, registered with Nameview, 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.
James A Crary as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 6, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 6, 2008.
On November 17, 2008, Nameview, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name is registered with Nameview, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameview, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview, 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 November 20, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 10, 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@mclarenhealthplan.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 15, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A Crary as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, McLaren Health Plan, Inc., provides healthcare coverage to individuals around the country. Complainant evidences, by sworn affidavit, that Complainant has operated its business continuously under the MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark in the healthcare field since 1997.
Respondent registered the <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name on May 16, 2005. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering links to third-party websites in competition with Complainant.
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant does not have a registered trademark for the MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark. However, registration is unnecessary pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), provided Complainant can establish common law rights in the mark. See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).
Complainant has established common law rights in the MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its history of use. Complainant provides evidence that it has used the MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark in connection with offering healthcare services continuously since 1997. The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights by acquiring a secondary meaning in the MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Kahn Dev. Co. v. RealtyPROshop.com, FA 568350 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2006) (holding that the complainant’s VILLAGE AT SANDHILL mark acquired secondary meaning among local consumers sufficient to establish common law rights where the complainant had been continuously and extensively promoting a real estate development under the mark for several years).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name is identical to
Complainant’s MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Respondent’s mark in its entirety, omits spacing, and adds the generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The
Panel finds that the omission of spacing and the addition of a gTLD do not
distinguish a disputed domain name from an established mark. See Microsoft
Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain
name <microsoft.org> is identical to the complainant’s mark); see also
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that rights and legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent fails to meet its burden of establishing rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”); see also Law Soc’y of Hong Kong v. Domain Strategy, Inc., HK-0200015 (ADNDRC Feb. 12, 2003) (“A respondent is not obligated to participate in a domain name dispute . . . but the failure to participate leaves a respondent vulnerable to the inferences that flow naturally from the assertions of the complainant and the tribunal will accept as established assertions by the complainant that are not unreasonable.”). However, the Panel will examine the evidence on record against the applicable Policy ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination with regards to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant implicitly asserts that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed
domain name through evidence of Respondent’s WHOIS information. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies
Respondent as “Whois Identity Shield.”
The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint
and WHOIS information demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the
disputed domain name. Therefore,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle
& Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there
must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and
Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly
known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that
Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in
determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent is using the <mclarenhealthplan.com>
domain name to display links advertising third-party websites, some of which
are in competition with Complainant. The
Panel infers that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to earn
click-through fees, and thus finds that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that
using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up
advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant
presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel considers Respondent’s use of the <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong possiblity of confusion with Complainant’s MCLAREN HEALTH PLAN mark and in offering links to competing websites. The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to competing websites. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to constitute bad faith registration and use. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that the displaying of links to Complainant’s competitors on the resolving website constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
The Panel finds that ¶ 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 <mclarenhealthplan.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A Crary, Panelist
Dated: December 25, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum