Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2009001912624
Complainant is Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("Complainant"), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <labcorplogin.com>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 16, 2020; the Forum received payment on September 16, 2020.
On September 17, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <labcorplogin.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 21, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 13, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@labcorplogin.com. Also on September 21, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 19, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a health care diagnostics company that provides clinical laboratory services throughout the world, with annual revenues of $11.5 billion, nearly 65,000 employees, and hundreds of thousands of customers. Complainant has used the LABCORP mark in connection with its services since 1995 and owns longstanding trademark registrations for LABCORP and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions.
The disputed domain name was registered via a privacy registration service in July 2020. The domain name is being used to redirect Internet users to various websites that Complainant alleges are part of a malware distribution scheme. In addition, the domain name is being offered for sale through Sedo.com, a domain name marketplace, with a minimum offer price of $899. Complainant states that there is no relationship between the parties and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <labcorplogin.com> is confusingly similar to its LABCORP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <labcorplogin.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LABCORP trademark, adding the generic term "login" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1880522 (Forum Mar. 2, 2020) (finding <morganstanleyclientlogin.com> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY); Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Stevan Mira, FA 1826770 (Forum Feb. 23, 2019) (finding <labcorp-locations.com> confusingly similar to LABCORP). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used for distributing malware and is being offered for sale through a domain name marketplace. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1880758 (Forum Feb. 28, 2000) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name was used to host malware and to exploit complainant's affiliate referral program; Caterpillar Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1876169 (Forum Jan. 20, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name was used to display pay-per-click advertisements and was offered for sale at a domain name marketplace); Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name was used to redirect users to malware site).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name that incorporates Complainant's well-known mark. Respondent is using the domain name to distribute malware and has listed it for sale at Sedo.com with a minimum price of $899, presumably in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the provisions of the Policy referenced above. See, e.g., HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (privacy registration service; distribution of malware); ADP, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1864470 (Forum Oct. 26, 2019) (privacy registration service; listing for sale at $899). The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's history of bad faith domain name registrations and adverse determinations under the Policy. See Walmart Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1909146 (Forum Sept. 27, 2020). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <labcorplogin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page