Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2010001916223
Complainant is Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <labbcorp.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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 October 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 8, 2020.
On October 12, 2020, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <labbcorp.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 October 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 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@labbcorp.com. Also on October 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 November 6, 2020, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Laboratory Corporation of American Holdings, specializes in new diagnostic technologies. Complainant has rights in the LABCORP mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <labbcorp.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the entire LABCORP mark and simply adds the letter “b” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <labbcorp.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has not permitted Respondent to use the LABCORP mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to other websites or to a parked page.
Respondent registered and uses the <labbcorp.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract Internet users by creating confusion and diverts Internet users to other websites for commercial gain. Furthermore, Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the use of typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements necessary to entitle 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 LABCORP mark based on registration with the USPTO, Reg. No. 2,000,799, registered on September 17, 1996. Respondent’s <labbcorp.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the entire LABCORP mark and simply adds the letter “b” and the inconsequential “.com” gTLD, 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.
Complainant has shown that its LABCORP mark had become very widely known by the time the <labbcorp.com> domain name was registered on May 30, 2012.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has coded the disputed domain name’s resolution to redirect to various other websites some of which, upon information and belief, redirect visitors to sites that are part of a malware distribution scheme. The Complaint exhibits a screenshot of one such website which displays the statement “Before you continue to labcorp.com”. The disputed domain name also redirects to a parked website displaying pay-per-click links to third party products and services.
These circumstances, together 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 name 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 name. 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 name.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy sets out the conjunctive requirement that Complainant establish both that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Respondent is using it in bad faith. The Complainant invokes sub-paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which sets out illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii):
(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.
The typosquatted character of the disputed domain name and the display on a website to which it resolves of the statement: “Before you continue to labcorp.com” make it clear that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites and of products or service on its websites.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <labbcorp.com> domain name was registered and is being used 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 <labbcorp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page