UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. David Haan
Claim Number: FA1302001484778
Complainant is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Richard J. Groos of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Texas, USA. Respondent is David Haan (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <goldenruleinsurance.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 12, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 12, 2013.
On February 12, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 12, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2013 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@goldenruleinsurance.net. Also on February 12, 2013, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 21, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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" 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 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 <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name, the domain name at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOLDEN RULE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant and its predecessors have offered insurance products and services throughout the United States under the GOLDEN RULE mark for over 60 years.
Complainant owns rights for the GOLDEN RULE mark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). See Reg. No. 1,526,117 registered Feb. 21, 1989. Respondent’s domain name merely adds the generic term “insurance” to the GOLDEN RULE mark along with the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” Nothing in the WHOIS information suggests that Respondent is known by the domain name at issue, and Complainant has not otherwise authorized Respondent’s use of its marks in domain names. Respondent is not providing a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer information related to Complainant’s GOLDEN RULE services, and links Internet users to both Complainant’s competitors and Complainant’s own websites. Respondent has been involved in at least three prior NAF proceedings in which it was mandated to transfer the domain names. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. David Haan, FA 948470 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2007); Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC/David Haan, D2012–1511 (WIPO Sept. 29, 2012); Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Private, Registration, Domains by Proxy, LLC. DomainsByProxy.com / David Haan, D2012–0615 (WIPO May 5, 2012).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOLDEN RULE mark. This is apparent from the fact that Respondent explicitly references Complainant and the GOLDEN RULE mark on the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name’s resolving websites.
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(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.”).
Complainant owns rights for the GOLDEN RULE mark with the USPTO, Reg. No. 1,526,117 registered Feb. 21, 1989. USPTO registration illustrates Complainant’s Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the mark as both parties are located in the United States. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name merely adds the generic term “insurance” to the GOLDEN RULE mark along with the addition of the gTLD “.net.” Respondent has also removed the spacing from the mark in forming the domain name. Neither the addition of a (g)TLD, nor the deletion of spacing, are meaningful changes as both are mandatory criteria in a domain name. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). The addition of the term “insurance” enhances confusing similarity as it describes the goods and services marketed under the GOLDEN RULE mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business). The Panel finds that the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the GOLDEN RULE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Nothing in the WHOIS information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name at issue, and Complainant has not otherwise authorized Respondent’s use of its marks in domain names. The WHOIS information lists “David Haan” as the registrant of the domain name. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) when there is no affirmative evidence showing otherwise. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Further, it appears that Respondent is not providing a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer information related to Complainant’s GOLDEN RULE services, and links Internet users to both Complainant’s competitors and Complainant’s own websites. The Panel notes that the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer assistance to Internet users seeking various forms of insurance coverage, primarily by requesting the Internet user to input their ZIP CODE and thus shuttling the user to a webpage listing purported insurers (some of whom compete with Complainant) in their geographic area. Previous panels have long held that putting a confusingly similar domain name to work in promoting the competitors of a complainant falls far short of a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor can such a use be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); 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). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent has made no Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, and no Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent explicitly references Complainant and the GOLDEN RULE mark on the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name’s resolving website. This indicates Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").
Respondent has been involved in at least three prior National Arbitration Forum proceedings in which the panel transferred the domain names. These findings also lead this Panel to find bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. David Haan, FA 948470 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2007); Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC/David Haan, D2012–1511 (WIPO Sept. 29, 2012); Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Private, Registration, Domains by Proxy, LLC. DomainsByProxy.com / David Haan, D2012–0615 (WIPO May 5, 2012). Previous panels have agreed that multiple prior UDRP decisions are sufficient evidence indicating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration in the present dispute. See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Therefore the Panel concludes that Respondent’s loss in three prior UDRP decisions is further evidence of bad faith use and registration of the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <goldenruleinsurance.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: March 27, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page