DECISION

 

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei

Claim Number: FA1805001784643

PARTIES

Complainant is Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (“Complainant”), represented by Susan G. O'Neill, Esq. of Hanson Bridgett LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Shi Lei / Shilei (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>, <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, <bcbswny.co>, <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 1, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 1, 2018.

 

On May 2, 2018, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>,  <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com> domain names are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. On May 2, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, and <bcbswny.co> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com have verified that Respondent is bound by the relevant Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On May 11, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 31, 2018 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@bcbsabenefit.com, postmaster@bcbsabenfits.com, postmaster@blushieldca.com, postmaster@bcbsilforyourhealth.co, postmaster@bcbssc.co, postmaster@bcbswny.co, postmaster@bcbsabenefit.xyz, postmaster@bcbsabenfits.xyz, postmaster@bcbsbenefits.xyz, postmaster@bcbsnationalsumit.xyz, postmaster@bcbsnationalsummi.xyz, postmaster@bcbsnationasummit.xyz, postmaster@bcbsalmedcare.com, postmaster@flloridablue.com, postmaster@florideblue.com, postmaster@bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com, postmaster@bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com, postmaster@bcbsnationalsumit.com, postmaster@bcbsnationalsummi.com, postmaster@bcbsnationasummit.com, postmaster@bcbstest.com, postmaster@bcsmedicaremarketplace.com, postmaster@blueshieldssettlement.com, and postmaster@blushieldsettlement.com.  Also on May 11, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 5, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Mark	Class(es): Goods/Services	Reg. No.
BCBS	36: Insurance administration in the field of comprehensive benefit programs, including those rendered through a health maintenance organization, namely, physician, dental, hospital, home health care, preventive health treatment, therapy and pharmacy. 44: Comprehensive health care benefit program in the nature of a health maintenance organization, namely, physician, dental, hospital, home health care, preventative health treatment, therapy and dispensing of pharmaceuticals.	4,212,904
BLUE	36: Prepaid financing and administration of medical, hospital and related health care services.	4,111,938
BLUE SHIELD	36: Prepaid financing and administration of medical, hospital and related health services.	1,045,586
BLUE SHIELD	36: Prepaid Financing and Administration of Dental and Related Health Care Services.	1,319,824
BLUE SHIELD	36: Administration, financial management and maintenance of health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, and flexible spending accounts; insurance claims administration.	3,169,932
BLUE CROSS	42: Home healthcare services, preventive healthcare services, health care services rendered through a health maintenance organization, namely physician services, dental services, hospital services, health treatment and therapy services, diagnostic testing and examination services, family planning services, mental health services, nursing services and prescription drug services, and arranging for ambulance services.	1,426,942
BLUE CROSS	36: Prepaid financing and administration of medical, hospital and related health services.	1,632,573
BLUES CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION	42: Association services; namely, promoting the delivery of quality, cost effective health care by health care plans.	1,744,958
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION	36: Prepaid financing and administration of medical, hospital and related health care services. 42: Comprehensive health care benefit programs, rendered through a health maintenance organization, namely, physician, dental, hospital, home health care, prevent health treatment, therapy, pharmacy and ambulatory services.	2,150,555
FLORIDA BLUE & Design	35 & 36: Retail store for insurance sales and related member services.	T18000000338

 

FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix). 

 

A.        The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

            (i.)        Background

 

            The Disputed Domain Names are comprised of trademarks in which Complainant has long-standing rights.

 

Complainant is an association of 36 independently-operated, local Blue Cross and Blue Shield Member Plans, which are licensed by BCBSA to provide health and life insurance, health-care delivery services, and related goods and services.  BCBSA represents the oldest and largest family of health benefits companies in the United States.  For over 80 years, BCBSA (including through its predecessors in interest and its licensees) has provided tens of millions of families with top-quality affordable health care plans.

 

BCBSA currently owns over 200 valid and subsisting U.S. federal trademark and service mark registrations, including the word marks BCBS, BLUE CROSS, and/or BLUE SHIELD, and BLUE; as well as design marks consisting in whole or in part of a blue cross and/or a blue shield. Additionally, BCBSA owns federal common law rights dating back as early as 2006 in, and a Florida state registration for, the mark FLORIDA BLUE, which is used by its Florida licensee Florida Blue. These, along with numerous trade names and common law marks, form BCBSA's "family" of trade names, trademarks, and service marks (the "BCBS Marks").  Many of BCBSA's registrations, including those for several of the BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD marks, have become incontestable under Section 15 of the U.S. Lanham Act.^[i]

 

The BCBS mark, apart from being a stand-alone service mark denoting the high-quality health plans and related goods and services provided by BCBSA's Member Plans, is well-known in the United States as referring to BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD. BCBSA and its Member Plans have used the BCBS mark in domain names since at least as early as the 1990s. Other panels have recognized BCBSA's rights in its BCBS mark, even as recently as last year. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Yanli Li / Yanli, FA 1708001742918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 8, 2017); see Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Domain Deluxe, WIPO Case No. D2005-0209. BCBSA's main website is at bcbs.com and it has owned that domain name since at least 2001.

 

BCBSA's services and those of its licensees are identified by and rendered under the BCBS Marks, including in domain names. BCBSA has registered numerous domain names incorporating its BCBS Marks, including bcbs.com, which resolves to BCBSA's website. Additionally, several of BCBSA's Member Plans combine the BCBS Marks and a geographic identifier in their domain names. For example, Florida Blue owns the domain name floridablue.com, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama owns bcbsal.org, BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York owns bcbswny.com, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois owns bcbsil.com, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas owns bcbsks.com, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana owns bcbsla.com, to name a few.

 

BCBSA has extensively used, advertised, and promoted the BCBS Marks throughout the United States.  For instance, in past years, annual gross revenue under the BCBS Marks has totaled hundreds of billions of dollars.  BCBSA spends millions of dollars in advertising and promoting its marks, services, products, and image, thereby creating substantial goodwill in the marketplace.  As a result, the general public in the United States recognizes the BCBS Marks separately and collectively as identifying BCBSA.  The BCBS Marks are an asset of incalculable value to BCBSA; and it has vigorously and successfully protected its marks.  Moreover, at least as far back as 1977, federal district courts in the United States and the World Intellectual Property Organization Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Panel have expressly recognized the fame of selected BCBS Marks in the context of trademark disputes or litigation.  See National Ass'n of Blue Shield Plans v. Lovelace, 435 F. Supp. 115 (N.D. Cal. 1977); Central Benefits Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n, 711 F. Supp. 1423 (S.D. Ohio 1989); Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n v. Garrett Ltd./John Nunley, WIPO Case No. D2003-0028; and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n v. Domain Deluxe, WIPO Case No. D2005-0209.

 

The Disputed Domain Names either have resolved and continue to resolve to a parked page with sponsored links, including links for health insurance and links containing BCBS Marks, or do not resolve. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names with prior knowledge and notice of BCBSA's rights in and to its BCBS Marks. Further, Respondent is not affiliated with BCBSA or any licensee or their services, nor is Respondent licensed to use any of the BCBS Marks. 

 

Complainant's Efforts to Amicably Resolve this Dispute

 

After BCBSA became aware that Respondent had registered several domain names incorporating BCBSA's marks, BCBSA's counsel sent a letter to Respondent on April 25, 2017, explaining BCBSA's trademark rights and the confusingly similar nature of the domain names to BCBSA's trademarks, and asking Respondent to cease its use of twenty-eight domain names and to transfer the domain names to BCBSA. BCBSA and Respondent informally resolved the dispute over these former domain names, resulting in the transfer of the domain names to BCBSA on May 16, 2017.  It later came to BCBSA's attention that Respondent registered some of the Disputed Domain Names incorporating BCBSA's trademarks that are the subject of this proceeding.  BCBSA's counsel wrote Respondent a letter on September 7, 2017, regarding these domain names and asking Respondent to allow them to expire at the then-current expiration dates. However, BCBSA since learned that Respondent did not allow the domain names to expire but instead renewed them, and in fact Respondent registered even more domain names incorporating BCBSA's trademarks. (Hanks Decl., ¶6). BCBSA's counsel wrote another letter to Respondent on February 16, 2018, asking Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Names to BCBSA, and informing Respondent that otherwise BCBSA would file a UDRP complaint. Respondent has not answered the February 16 letter to date, nor has Respondent transferred the domain names as requested. Given Respondent's lack of regard for BCBSA's trademark rights, BCBSA was left with no other recourse than to file the current complaint.

 

(ii.)       The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks because the domain names incorporate its marks entirely.

 

Under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the "domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights."

 

Here, the Disputed Domain Names fully incorporate BCBSA's trademarks. Specifically, the Disputed Domain Names fully incorporate the BCBS mark, the BLUE SHIELD mark, the BLUE mark, and the FLORIDA BLUE mark. Including generic top level domain descriptors such as ".com" in the Disputed Domain Names does not affect a finding of confusing similarity, and panels have repeatedly held as such. TelCan Inc. v. Amar Behura / Interactive Media Technologies, FA 1703001724650 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2017) ("It is generally recognized that adding a gTLD such as ".com" is irrelevant to a panel's determination of whether or not a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark."); Autoscout24 GmbH v. Nextone Media Ltd., WIPO Case No. DCO2012-0014 (disregarding the suffix '.co').

 

Furthermore, the addition of a generic, descriptive term does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from BCBSA's BCBS Marks. Blowfish, LLC v. Allan Vincent, FA 1711001759185 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2017) ("Addition of a generic or descriptive term is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis."); Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). For example, several of the Disputed Domain Names incorporate the words, or a misspelling of the words, "benefit", benefits", "settlement" (i.e. insurance claim settlement), "for your health", "medcare", "national summit"—which is BCBSA's annual healthcare conference—or a geographic abbreviation for a state such as "ca" (California), "il" (Illinois), "sc" (South Carolina), "ny" (New York), or "al" (Alabama). None of these generic terms (or a combination of generic terms), or the geographic descriptors distinguishes the Disputed Domain Names from BCBSA's BCBS Marks.

 

Additionally, a few of the Disputed Domain Names contain minor misspellings of BCBSA's trademarks, for example blushieldsettlement.com, blushieldca.com and flloridablue.com. In this context, "blushield" and "flloridablue" are clear misspellings of the words BLUE and FLORIDA in BCBSA's BLUE SHIELD, BLUE, and FLORIDA BLUE marks, a fact that does not diminish the confusing similarity between such domain names and BCBSA's marks. Panels have held that minor misspellings of the complainant's mark(s)—so-called "typosquatting"—support a finding of confusing similarity. E.g., Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 2, 2015) (finding the <wllsfago.com> domain name confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark where the domain name merely omitted the "e" and "r" from the mark while adding the ".com" gTLD suffix.); Verizon Trademark Services, LLC v. Paulo c/o Paulo Kann, WIPO Case No. D2010-0989 (ordering the transfer of 23 domain names, each with one typographical error to complainant's VERIZON and VERIZON WIRELESS marks).

 

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to BCBSA's marks.

 

B.        The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has "no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name."

 

(i.)        Paragraph 4(c)(i)

 

Respondent has no rights to, or legitimate interests in, the Disputed Domain Names. "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." AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006). First, Respondent is not using the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Disputed Domain Names either resolve to a parked page which display sponsored links, including to health insurance quotes, or do not resolve.

 

Previous NAF panels make clear that such use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. See RML-Bel Air, LLC d/b/a Bel Air Honda v. Cayman Ninety Business c/o Domain Administrator, FA 1006001327815 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 19, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use [of resolving to a 'commercial links page featuring links'] is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii))."); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant's competitors).  For instance, in Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. saqib jillani, FA1612001707547 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 30, 2017), the panel stated that "[a] respondent using a domain name to display advertisements for products in competition with products offered by a complainant is not using a domain name in a manner acceptable under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or ¶4(c)(iii)." See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. I S / ICS INC, FA 1612001708071 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 23, 2017) (finding no legitimate interest where respondent's domain name resolved "to a parked web page displaying third-party click-through links to various companies and parties, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant."); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Cinelli, FA 1709001750615 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 19, 2017) ("Respondent's <statefarmnearme.com> does not resolve to an active website. The domain name's inactivity indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of such domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).").

 

(ii.)       Paragraph 4(c)(ii)

 

Second, Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names under Paragraph 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not commonly known by or as any of the marks or terms comprising the Disputed Domain Names, such as "BCBS" or "BLUESHIELD", or any combination thereof, nor could Respondent have developed any common-law trademark or service mark rights in BCBSA's well-known trademarks. See Suunto Oy Corporation v. Bob Smith, FA 1110001412957 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 13, 2011) ("[P]anels have found that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the complainant has not authorized the respondent to use the complainant's mark and the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain name.").

 

Furthermore, BCBSA has not given Respondent a license or permission to use its trademarks, including in domain names. The absence of permission to use the Complainant's mark is prima facie evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant's mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); Win Kelly Chevrolet L.L.C. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, FA 1307001510638 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 10, 2013) ("The Panel finds that without express permission to use the marks—and Respondent does not defend any such trademark rights in the marks—it is appropriate to find that Respondent is not commonly known by the . . . domain name pursuant to a Policy ¶4(c)(ii) analysis."); Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0020 (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names since it had not been licensed nor received permission to use any of complainant's trademarks or domain names incorporating those marks).

 

(iii.)      Paragraph 4(c)(iii)

 

Finally, Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names under Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy because Respondent does not use the Disputed Domain Names in a non-commercial manner, nor in a manner that might be deemed a legitimate fair use. This is especially true given that the Disputed Domain Names have been resolving to a parked page with sponsored links or not resolving, as discussed above. See RML-Bel Air, LLC d/b/a Bel Air Honda, supra ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use [of resolving to a 'commercial links page featuring links'] is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii))."); MTD Products Inc v. Bill Rodgers / Valley Power Products, Inc., FA 1710001756089 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 27, 2017) ("Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!". Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

The foregoing demonstrates that Respondent is not using and has not used the Disputed Domain Names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, and has not used the Disputed Domain Names in a non-commercial manner, nor in a way that could be characterized as a legitimate fair use without intent for commercial gain. Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.

 

C.        The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

(Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b);  Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3))

 

Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. The evidence shows that Respondent was on actual notice of BCBSA at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names, and the Disputed Domain Names are misdirecting Internet users to a website hosting sponsored links or to an inactive website. Moreover, Respondent failed to respond to BCBSA's efforts to resolve this dispute informally. (Hanks Decl., ¶¶5-8); Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ashish Sen, FA 1702054 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that failing to respond to a cease-and-desist demand letter constitutes bad faith).

 

(i.)        Actual Notice

 

The circumstances surrounding Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that Respondent was on actual notice of BCBSA at the time Respondent registered the domain names. Pella Corporation v. Private Whois Service, FA 1107001400490 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 7, 2011) ("Due to the obvious use of a Complainant's distinctive PELLA mark in the disputed domain name, however, as well as the relevance of the pay-per-click links to Complainant's line of business, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual notice of the mark when it registered the disputed domain name, indicating bad faith registration and use."). First, Respondent has corresponded with BCBSA regarding its trademark rights before, and the parties informally resolved a prior dispute regarding domain names that incorporated BCBSA's trademarks, which resulted in the transfer of the domain names to BCBSA on May 16, 2017.  Therefore, it cannot be disputed that Respondent was aware of BCBSA and its trademark rights at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.

 

Second, even if the parties had not previously dealt with each other regarding BCBSA's trademarks, BCBSA has used the BCBS Marks in commerce since long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names.  The widespread knowledge among the United States public of BCBSA's marks, Respondent's timing of registering the Disputed Domain Names after BCBSA's use and registration for the BCBS Marks incorporated in the Disputed Domain Names, and the fact that many of the Disputed Domain Names resolve to a website featuring sponsored links promoting health insurance, shows Respondent's knowledge of BCBSA's marks. See Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minton Edwards, FA 1006001328594 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2010) ("[A]s the disputed domain name was registered after the registration of Complainant's established trademark rights and given the fact that Respondent's website employs insurance themed links that resolve to websites of Complainant's competitors, Respondent could not have registered and used the disputed domain name without actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the CHURCHILL mark."); Computop Wirtschaftsinformatik GmbH v. Domain Administrator, FA 1106001394450 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 8, 2011) (finding bad faith when a "Google search done by Respondent at the time it registered the domain name would have easily disclosed Complainant's business and therefore, with due diligence on the part of Respondent, led to discovering Complainant's trademark.").

 

(ii.)       Parked Pages

 

Additionally, Respondent has used and continues to use many of the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to parked pages, including to parked pages that feature links for health insurance.  "The use of a disputed domain name to misdirect Internet users to a website hosting advertising links is evidence of bad faith registration and use." Isagenix International, LLC v. Domain Administrator / DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC., FA 1706001734412 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2017); see Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA 1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured only sponsored advertisements and links); Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) by using the domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant's competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).

 

(iii.)      Inactive Website

 

Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website is evidence of bad faith under subparagraph 4(a)(iii). State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., FA 1709001750615, supra ("Respondent's failure to make an active use of <statefarmnearme.com> in itself indicates Respondent's bad faith."); see Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent's failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also, VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA 1503001608735 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2015) ("Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii)."). Respondent's use of several of the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to an inactive website is evidence of bad faith.

 

(iv.)      Pattern of Conduct

 

Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names incorporating BCBSA's marks. A "pattern of conduct" may involve multiple domain names directed against a single complainant. See Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing Co., et al. v. Savior Baby, WIPO Case No. D2000-1741; Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc. v. Andrew Luthi, FA 1204001440472 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2012) (finding bad faith from multiple registrations containing complainant's marks). For example, panels have found a pattern of conduct constituting bad faith from the registration of four domain names incorporating a complainant's mark. Id.; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls WIPO Case No. D2001-0046 ("Fifteen domain names that involve the Complainant's mark and a series of services, products, geographical descriptors, or generic words obviously involves a pattern of conduct directed against the Complainant, stopping it from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names. I conclude that paragraph 4(b)(ii) is made out."). Here, Respondent has registered 24 domain names incorporating BCBSA's marks that are currently in dispute, and over 50 total domain names incorporating BCBSA's marks including the prior domain names that Respondent transferred to BCBSA.

 

Aside from a pattern of conduct as to BCBSA, Respondent also has a pattern of registering well-known, third-party trademarks. For example, complainants owning rights in marks such as MICROSOFT, ENTERPRISE, and AMAZON, among others, have brought over 15 successful UDRP proceedings against Respondent.^[ii] While this alone is sufficient to establish bad faith, when combined with the other overwhelming evidence of bad faith in this case, it is apparent that Respondent's registration and use was and continues to be in bad faith.

 

(v.)       Typoquatting

 

As discussed above, several of the Disputed Domain Names consist of minor misspellings of the BCBS Marks. Typosquatting is evidence of bad faith. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. shilei c/o shilei, FA 1412001596346 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 2, 2015) (transferring domain name registered by Shilei and finding Shilei's typosquatting evidence of bad faith); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (holding that the practice of typosquatting "diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant's mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent's commercial gain.  'Typosquatting' has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use.").

 

Based on the foregoing evidence, Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

LANGUAGE REQUEST

Complainant requests this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a).  Complainant makes this request in spite of the Chinese language Registration Agreement.  It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties.  Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the Chinese language included in the Registration Agreement.  See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).  The Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party.  See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”):

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language due to the parties’ prior dealings in the English language.  After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.

 

FINDINGS

(1)          the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)          Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and

(3)          the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name 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(f), 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 (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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant claims rights in its BCBS, BLUE CROSS, BLUE SHIELD, and BLUE marks through their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Registration with a governmental trademark agency, such as the USPTO, is sufficient to prove Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in a mark.  See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for its various marks (BCBS­ - e.g., Reg. No. 4,212,904, registered Sep. 25, 2012), (BLUE CROSS – e.g., 1,426,942, registered Jan. 27, 1987), (BLUE SHIELD – e.g., 1,045,586, Aug. 3, 1976), and (BLUE – e.g., 4,111,938, registered Mar. 13, 2012). Complainant established rights in the marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

Complainant claims also rights in the FLORIDA BLUE mark under common law. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding Policy ¶4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including “longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising.”). Complainant has continuously used the mark since 2006 and it was registered with the State of Florida. Complainant has sufficiently established common law rights in its FLORIDA BLUE mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

Complainant claims Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because each of them contains one of Complainant’s marks, sometimes misspelled, adds a generic term and a gTLD/ccTLD. The addition of a generic term to a mark or misspelled version of a mark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under the facts of this Proceeding.  A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.  See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).); see also Chegg Inc. v. Company CEO / Qulity Programming, FA 1610061 (Forum Apr. 20, 2015) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i) whereas “Respondent’s <chwgg.com> domain name is a simple misspelling of Complainant’s CHEGG.COM mark.”). Respondent adds various related generic terms such as “benefit,” “foryourhealth,” and “settlement” to Complainant’s BCBS marks and adds the gTLDs, “.com,” “.xyz,” or “.co.” Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BCBS marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).  Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by any of the domain names and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BCBS marks in any fashion. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent.  See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name). The WHOIS identifies “Shi Lei a/k/a Shilei” as the registrants.  Absent information in the record to the contrary (and there is none in this case), the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses some of the domain names to resolve to dynamic parking pages that display competing hyperlinks. Using a domain name to resolve to a dynamic parking page featuring competing hyperlinks does not constitute a bona fide offering or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or (iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). The <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>, <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, <bcbswny.co>, , <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com> domain names feature landing pages with hyperlinks such as, “Medicare Benefit,” “BCBS Insurance,” and “Health Care Benefits.” Respondent failed to use those domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent uses the other domain names to resolve to inactive websites: <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz> and <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com>. Using a domain name to resolve to an non-existent website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii) (although a domain name may be legitimately used for other purposes than simply a website, such as email, an ecommerce portal or a nameserver; none of which Respondent has claimed in this case). See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Usama Ayub, FA1725806 (Forum June 5, 2017) (holding that “Respondent does not use the <nutrisystemturbo.us> domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the domain name resolves to a website that currently is designated as ‘under construction.’”). Respondent failed to use the <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz> and <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims Respondent established a pattern of bad faith registration by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon Complainant’s rights and by registering domain names that infringe on the rights of third parties. Some claim a pattern of bad faith may be established through a respondent’s registration of multiple domain names (24 in this case) that infringe upon well-known trademarks. See Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Fortune Int'l Dev., FA 96685 (Forum Apr. 6, 2001) (finding that where the respondent has registered over 50 domain names that correspond to different well-known trademarks, evidence of a pattern exists). In addition to the twenty-four (24) infringing domain names at issue in the present case, Respondent has registered domain names in the past that infringe on well-known marks, such as MICROSOFT and ENTERPRISE. See Microsoft Corp. v. shilei, FA1617855 (Forum Jun. 17, 2015); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. shilei c/o shilei, FA1596346 (Forum Feb. 2, 2015).  This Panel does not agree with this logic because such behavior does not meet the requirements of Policy ¶4(b)(ii), which provides: “(ii) [Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct” because Complainant is still able to reflect its marks in various domain names.  However, Respondent’s behavior falls within the penumbra of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to Respondent’s <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>, <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, <bcbswny.co>, , <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com> websites and is using those domain names to create confusion with Complainant’s marks for Respondent’s commercial gain. Using a domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement therein for commercial gain constitutes bad faith under both Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)). Respondent used the <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>, <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, <bcbswny.co>, , <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com> domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business or to attract Internet users to its domain names for profit. This Panel concludes Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant claims Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the marks. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). On this case, Respondent had prior dealings with Complainant about other infringing domain names.  The parties resolved those issues amicably.  Then Respondent registered 24 additional domain names after resolving the prior dispute.  Aside from such activity defying logic, Respondent had irrefutable knowledge of Complainant’s marks.  Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when the infringing domain names were registered and subsequently used under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not use the <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz> and <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com> domain names. Failure to make an active use of a domain name constitutes evidence bad faith registration and use. See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).”). Respondent does not claim to use these disputed domain names for other permissible purposes, such as an email server, an ecommerce portal backend or as a nameserver.  Respondent failed to actively use the <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz> and <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com> domain names.  Respondent registered and used the <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz> and <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered the <bcbsabenefit.com>, <bcbsabenfits.com>, <blushieldca.com>, <bcbsilforyourhealth.co>, <bcbssc.co>, <bcbswny.co>, <bcbsabenefit.xyz>, <bcbsabenfits.xyz>, <bcbsbenefits.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsumit.xyz>, <bcbsnationalsummi.xyz>, <bcbsnationasummit.xyz>, <bcbsalmedcare.com>, <flloridablue.com>, <florideblue.com>, <bcbsmedcaremarketplace.com>, <bcbsmedicarmarketplace.com>, <bcbsnationalsumit.com>, <bcbsnationalsummi.com>, <bcbsnationasummit.com>, <bcbstest.com>, <bcsmedicaremarketplace.com>, <blueshieldssettlement.com> and <blushieldsettlement.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated:  Monday, June 18, 2018