DECISION

 

AARP v. Clifford M. Williams

Claim Number: FA2402002083623

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AARP ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Clifford M. Williams ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <myaarpmedicares.us>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2024; Forum received payment on February 13, 2024.

 

On February 21, 2024, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myaarpmedicares.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 21, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 12, 2024 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@myaarpmedicares.us. Also on February 21, 2024, 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 March 13, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AARP mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds registrations for its well-known AARP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,046,998, registered on August 24, 1976).  Complainant conducts business at <myaarpmedicare.com>.

 

Respondent registered the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name on October 23, 2021, and uses it for pay-per-click links and to phish for user information.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AARP mark through registration with the USPTO. 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.").

 

Respondent's <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name uses the AARP mark and simply adds the descriptive words "my" and "medicares" and a TLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com> contained the complainant's mark in its entirety adding "the descriptive term 'baths,' which is an obvious allusion to complainant's business.").  The Panel finds that Respondent's <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AARP mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use the AARP mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Clifford M. Williams". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also 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 [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name resolves to a website that offers pay-per-click links. Using a disputed domain name to offer pay-per-click links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant's travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)'s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Complainant provides screenshots of the website at <myaarpmedicares.us> showing pay-per-click links. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).

 

The screenshots provided by Complainant also show Respondent's use of the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name to phish for users' information, further establishing Respondent's lack of rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name in bad faith by using it to offer pay-per-click links. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA 1557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) ("Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant's competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit."). 

 

Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name's resolving website contains prompts for users to enter personal information. The Panel finds that this constitutes phishing and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information."). 

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AARP mark, due to the fame of the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights, demonstrating further bad faith under 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <myaarpmedicares.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: March 14, 2024