Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company v. Sandra Williams / Prisma Health
Claim Number: FA2304002039266
Complainant is Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jason A. Pittman of Dority & Manning, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Sandra Williams / Prisma Health (“Respondent”), South Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <palmettoprismahealth.org>, registered with Google 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2023; Forum received payment on April 8, 2023.
On April 10, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 April 17, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 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@palmettoprismahealth.org. Also on April 17, 2023, 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 May 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Prisma Health f/k/a/ SC Health Company, operates a non-profit healthcare system.
Complainant has rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRISMA HEALTH mark as the domain name incorporates the mark while adding the term “palmetto” and the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its PRISMA HEALTH mark in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead capitalizes on Complainant’s goodwill and causes consumer confusion.
Respondent registered and uses the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with false contact information and failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Furthermore, Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the PRISMA HEALTH trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the PRISMA HEALTH trademark.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.
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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration for PRISMA HEALTH is sufficient to established Complainant’s rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s PRISMA HEALTH trademark prefixed by the term “palmetto” and with all followed by the “.org” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRISMA HEALTH mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See 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)”).
The WHOIS information for <palmettoprismahealth.org> reveals that “Sandra Williams” is its registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. There is no allegation or evidence in the record of any substantive content currently or ever being addressed by <palmettoprismahealth.org>: Respondent’s failure to actively use the domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”)
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Complainant proffers evidence showing that Respondent used false contact information to register <palmettoprismahealth.org> and failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. Doing so indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Seiko Epson Corporation v. Ashish Sen, FA 1702054 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding that failing to respond to a cease-and-desist demand letter constitutes bad faith).
Next, and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent appears to hold <palmettoprismahealth.org> passively. Respondent’s failure to actively use <palmettoprismahealth.org> indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Notably, passive holding of a domain name has been viewed as a disruption to a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by pointing internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark when it registered <palmettoprismahealth.org> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and given Respondent’s inclusion of the term “palmetto,” which is suggestive of Complainant’s area of operation, in the domain name. Respondent’s registration of <palmettoprismahealth.org> with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in PRISMA HEALTH further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <palmettoprismahealth.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page