Team Health, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2001001878451
Complainant is Team Health, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Linda A. Friedman of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Alabama, United States. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot (“Respondent”), California, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain name at issue are <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 10, 2020.
On January 13, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 January 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2020 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@teamhealthbenifits.com, postmaster@teamhealthbenfits.com, postmaster@teamhealthbenefit.com, postmaster@thbillpayteamhealth.com. Also on January 13, 2020, 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 February 9, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is in the business of primary health care services including business administration and management. Complainant holds a registration for the TEAM HEALTH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,489,975, registered Sep. 18, 2001).
Respondent registered the <teamhealthbenfits.com> and <teamhealthbenefit.com> domain names on October 22, 2019, the <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain name on September 26, 2019, and the <teamhealthbenifits.com> domain name on October 19, 2019. Respondent uses the domain names to install malware and to host generic links related and unrelated to Complainant’s business.
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(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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TEAM HEALTH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names contain Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark and add a generic term or phrase, and a gTLD. Respondent also incorporates s a common misspelling of the word “benefits” in one of the disputed domain names. These changes do not distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”); see also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) (“The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM HEALTH mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Respondent has no license or consent to use the TEAM HEALTH mark or to register domain names using Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s <teamhealthbenifits.com> and <teamhealthbenefit.com> domain names that show links to “Employee Health Insurance” and “Employee Health Benefits.” The Panel finds that this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names in an attempt to install malware onto Internet users computers. The use of a disputed domain name to install malware is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the webpage resolving from Respondent’s <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names that shows a Windows system warning. The Panel finds that this is further evidence that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names in bad faith, as Respondent displays links to services related to Complainant’s business. Registering a disputed domain name to host links to services in competition with complainant is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names in an attempt to install malware onto Internet users’ computers. The use of a disputed domain to install malware on Internet users devices is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent’s undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting by purposely misspelling the word “benefits” in the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com> domain names. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent engaged in typosquatting, which also constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teamhealthbenifits.com>, <teamhealthbenfits.com>, <teamhealthbenefit.com>, and <thbillpayteamhealth.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page