UPMC v. John Pequeno
Claim Number: FA1004001319984
Complainant is UPMC (“Complainant”),
represented by Jeffrey T. Baravetto, of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <upmcinformation.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, 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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 19, 2010.
On April 19, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <upmcinformation.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 April 21, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 2010 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@upmcinformation.com by e-mail. Also on April 21, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 18, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <upmcinformation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPMC mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <upmcinformation.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <upmcinformation.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, UPMC, is a not-for-profit health system in
Respondent, John Pequeno, registered the <upmcinformation.com> domain name on June 24, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers individual and family health insurance quotes and directs Internet users to health insurance providers that compete 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.
The Panel determines that Complainant has established rights
in its UPMC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its
registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,174,963 issued July 21,
1998).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <upmcinformation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPMC mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark and adds the generic term “information” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Past panels have held that the addition of a generic term fails to adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names); see also Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end). Prior panels have also found that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis as all domain names are required to include a top-level domain. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <upmcinformation.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPMC mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <upmcinformation.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) when the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations. The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Respondent has not presented any evidence, and there is no evidence in the record, that would support a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “John Pequeno,” which the Panel determines is not similar to the <upmcinformation.com> domain name. Moreover, Complainant alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and that Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s UPMC mark. For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <upmcinformation.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
The <upmcinformation.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers health insurance quotes and directs Internet users to health insurance providers that compete with Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of good or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors).
The Panel determines Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <upmcinformation.com> domain name to compete with Complainant. The website resolving from the disputed domain name purports to be affiliated with Complainant and offers health insurance quotes from third-party providers that compete with Complainant. Complainant argues that Internet users interested in Complainant’s health insurance services may purchase health insurance from a competitor of Complainant due to Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <upmcinformation.com> domain name. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent commercially benefits from its use of the <upmcinformation.com> domain name. Internet users interested in Complainant may access the resolving website believing it to be affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent attempts to profit from this confusion. The Panel determines that Respondent’s use of the <upmcinformation.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds 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 <upmcinformation.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum