Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health v. Li Jin Liang / Quan Zhong Jun / MingLee / li jinliang
Claim Number: FA2102001931401
Complainant is Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health (“Complainant”), represented by Justin B. Perri of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondents are Li Jin Liang / Quan Zhong Jun / MingLee / li jinliang (“Respondents”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <mtunitypoint.org>, <myuitypoint.org>, <myunitupoint.org>, <myunityoint.org>, <myunitypoit.org>, <myuniypoint.org>, <myuntypoint.org>, <nyunitypoint.org>, <uniypoint.org> and <uitypoint.org>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation in the name Li Jin Liang; <munitypoint.org> registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation in the name Quan Zhong Jun; <myinitypoint.org>, <myunitypoimt.org>, and <myunityooint.org>, registered with Sav.com in the name MingLee; and <nitypoint.org>, registered with Register SpA in the name li jinliang.
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 8, 2021. The Forum received payment on February 8, 2021.
On February 11, 2021 and February 18, 2021, Xin Net Technology Corporation, Register SpA and Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mtunitypoint.org>, <munitypoint.org>, <myuitypoint.org>, <myunitupoint.org>, <myunityoint.org>, <myunitypoit.org>, <myuniypoint.org>, <myuntypoint.org>, <nyunitypoint.org>, <uniypoint.org>, <nitypoint.org>, <uitypoint.org>, <myinitypoint.org>, <myunitypoimt.org>, and <myunityooint.org> domain names are registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation, Register SpA and Sav.com, LLC and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Xin Net Technology Corporation, Register SpA and Sav.com, LLC have verified that Respondents are bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation, Register SpA and Sav.com, LLC 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”). The Xin Net Technology Corporation and Register SpA Registration Agreements are in Chinese and the Sav.com Registration Agreement is in English.
On February 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint in both English and Chinese, setting a deadline of March 15, 2021 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mtunitypoint.org, postmaster@munitypoint.org, postmaster@myuitypoint.org, postmaster@myunitupoint.org, postmaster@myunityoint.org, postmaster@myunitypoit.org, postmaster@myuniypoint.org, postmaster@myuntypoint.org, postmaster@nyunitypoint.org, postmaster@uniypoint.org, postmaster@nitypoint.org, postmaster@uitypoint.org, postmaster@myinitypoint.org, postmaster@myunitypoimt.org, postmaster@myunityooint.org. Also on February 22, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint in both English and Chinese, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondents, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 19, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder”. Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines “The Holder of a Domain Name Registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement” and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entities, operating under an alias. All the disputed domain names are registered in the .org TLD, several within days or even minutes of each other. All are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s UNITYPOINT trademark and of its <myunitypoint.org> domain name. All have the same Domain Name System (DNS) configuration, including the same IP address of 35.186.238.101; all have Google as their host for Internet connectivity; all are configured with no MX (mail server) records; and all have NS (name server) records pointing to smartname.com.
All the disputed domain names resolve to similar websites with similar pay-per-click content, offering medical records, medical billing, and other health-related services.
In Oracle International Corporation v. Quan Zhong Jun / Li Jin Liang, FA2008001907232 (Forum Sept. 8, 2020), the panel found domain names registered in the names Li Jin Liang and Quan Zhong Jun to be “owned or controlled by a single person, whether that be one or other of the named respondents, or some third person”. MingLee uses the e-mail address <fewj959959@126.com>, which has been associated with over one hundred domain names associated with Quan Zhong Jun.
Complainant submits that it is clear that Li Jin Liang, Quan Zhong Jun, Li Jinliang, and MingLee are alter egos of the same registrant.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that all the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Henceforth this decision will refer to Li Jin Liang / Quan Zhong Jun / MingLee / li jinliang as “Respondent”.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
As noted, two of the Registration Agreements are in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.
Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
The Panel notes that each of the domain names and the websites to which they resolve are in English and that the Sav.com Registration Agreement for three of the disputed domain names is written in English.
In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be conversant with English; that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding; and that it would be unnecessarily time-consuming and costly to require Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the 13th largest non-profit health system in America, providing care to both metropolitan and rural communities across Iowa, western Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Complainant has rights in the UNITYPOINT mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark as they all include slight alterations in the spelling of that mark with the added gTLD “.org.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the UNITYPOINT mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses them in connection with pay-per-click advertising.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has a history of bad faith registrations and used a proxy service to hide Respondent’s identity. Respondent uses the disputed domain names in connection with pay-per-click advertising. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the UNITYPOINT mark prior to registering the disputed domain names based on the famous nature of Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and potentially uses the disputed domain names in connection with phishing.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the UNITYPOINT mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,589,201, registered August 19, 2014).
Respondent’s <mtunitypoint.org>, <munitypoint.org>, <myuitypoint.org>, <myunitupoint.org>, <myunityoint.org>, <myunitypoit.org>, <myuniypoint.org>, <myuntypoint.org>, <nyunitypoint.org>, <uniypoint.org>, <nitypoint.org>, <uitypoint.org>, <myinitypoint.org>, <myunitypoimt.org>, and <myunityooint.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark as they all include slight alterations in the spelling of Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark together with the inconsequential gTLD “.org”, which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
As noted, Complainant registered its UNITYPOINT mark on August 19, 2014. Respondent registered the domain name UNITPOINT.ORG on October 7, 2018, followed by the registration of the other fourteen disputed domain names. All the disputed domain names resolve to similar websites with similar pay-per-click content, offering medical records, medical billing, and other health-related services.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
In light of the circumstances set out in relation to the previous element, the Panel finds that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark when registering the disputed domain names and did so with intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Complainant’s customers. Also, by using the disputed domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or of a service on its websites.
Further, each of the disputed domain names is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s UNITYPOINT mark. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mtunitypoint.org>, <munitypoint.org>, <myuitypoint.org>, <myunitupoint.org>, <myunityoint.org>, <myunitypoit.org>, <myuniypoint.org>, <myuntypoint.org>, <nyunitypoint.org>, <uniypoint.org>, <nitypoint.org>, <uitypoint.org>, <myinitypoint.org>, <myunitypoimt.org>, and <myunityooint.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page