Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority v. Salim Shaik
Claim Number: FA2212002022833
Complainant is Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority (“Complainant”), represented by Susan N. Weller of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., USA. Respondent is Salim Shaik (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mahealthconnectors.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 5, 2022; Forum received payment on December 5, 2022.
On Dec 13, 2022, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mahealthconnectors.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 December 15, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 4, 2023 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@mahealthconnectors.com. Also on December 15, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 9, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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, Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, operates a marketplace for residents of Massachusetts, United States to purchase health insurance. Complainant has rights in the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,089,192, which was registered on November 29, 2016). Respondent’s <mahealthconnectors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark as it merely adds a geographic abbreviation and generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <mahealthconnectors.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a webpage (“Respondent’s Website”) where Respondent (though use of Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark) attempts to pass off as Complainant or as affiliated with Complainant for the purpose of offering competing services. Including a disclaimer on the Respondent’s Website site is insufficient to confer rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent registered and uses the <mahealthconnectors.com> domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant through a fraudulent website that offers competing services. Further, Respondent failed to respond to a prior UDRP complaint filed by Complainant, indicating a pattern of conduct. Finally, Respondent has provided incomplete WHOIS information and, given the prior UDRP complaint filed by Complainant, registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 rights in the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 5,089,192, which was registered on November 29, 2016). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name <mahealthconnectors.com> is confusingly similar to the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark as it incorporates the entire HEALTH CONNECTOR mark while adding the geographic abbreviation “ma” (short for “Massachusetts”), the letter “s” and the “.com” gTLD. Domain names which incorporate an entire mark are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding a single letter, a geographic term and a gTLD is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Cargill, Incorporated v. Sales Office / Cargill Brasil, FA 1737212 (Forum July 21, 2017) (finding the addition of the geographic term “Brasil” does not avoid confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“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.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Salim Shaik” as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s Website which, through the reproduction of the HEALTH CONNECTOR mark, Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR device mark and reference to Complainant’s health insurance marketplace, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering competing services. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that passes off as an official website for the purpose of offering competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum February 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”). See also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (October 29, 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark since the Respondent’s Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant including reproducing Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR device mark and offering directly competing services. Furthermore, the Domain Name was registered shortly after Respondent had been the participant in a previous UDRP proceeding brought by Complainant in connection with a similar domain name resolving to an identical website. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that, under Complainant’s HEALTH CONNECTOR mark, purports to offer services directly competing with Complainant’s services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
The Panel finds 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 <mahealthconnectors.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: January 10, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page