DECISION

 

Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company v. Huade Wang

Claim Number: FA2404002092522

 

PARTIES

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 Huade Wang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 9, 2024; Forum received payment on April 10, 2024.

 

On April 10, 2024, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 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@myprismahealthenrollment.com, postmaster@prismahealthopenenrollment.com, postmaster@myprismaheathopenenrollment.com and postmaster@myprismahealthopenenrolment.com. Also on April 12, 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 May 3, 2024, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

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 <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH mark as the domain name incorporates the mark while adding the various terms and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in each of the <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by any at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its PRISMA HEALTH mark in any at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain names are intended to mislead parties to believe that their websites are associated with Prisma Health and/or its healthcare services. Respondent is in fact using the disputed domains for similar appearing websites that display links that purport to offer healthcare and health insurance services that are related to Complainant's healthcare services and intended to mislead parties to believe the websites are associated with Prisma Health and/or its healthcare services. The domain names themselves suggest they are associated with the sale of healthcare services and health insurance. Respondent does nothing to limit the confusion between the domain names and Complainant's trademark. 

 

Respondent registered and uses the <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent registered multiple domain names containing Complainant's mark and has been involved in prior adverse UDRP decisions showing a pattern of bad faith behavior. Respondent never replied to Complainant's cease and desist notifications. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark when it registered the at-issue domain names.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 uses the at-issue domain names to address websites that display pay-per-click links to services similar to services offered by Complainant.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

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 names contain Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH trademark along with various terms such as "open," "enrollment," and "my," and conclude with the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between any of Respondent's <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> or <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish any domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names are each 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); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 names. 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 any of the at-issue domain names. 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 <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> reveals that "Huade Wang" is their registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> or the <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where "the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant's mark in any way.").

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address websites that display links to third parties. Respondent's use the domain names in this manner 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 McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) ("The Panel finds Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant's legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to host competitive hyperlinks. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names in this manner disrupts Complainant's business, commercially exploits the confusing similarity that Respondent created between Complainant's trademark and each of the at-issue domain names, and indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)"); see also, Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links); see also, Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) ("The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant's METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.")

 

Additionally, Respondent registered multiple confusingly similar domain names containing Complainant's trademark that are now the subject of the instant dispute and has also suffered adverse decisions as a respondent in prior UDRP proceedings. Respondent's history thus reveals a pattern of domain name abuse that points to Respondent's bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent's registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant's SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also, Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark when it registered the at-issue domain names. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark as well as from Respondent's registration of multiple domain names incorporating Complainant's trademark. Respondent's registration of multiple confusingly similar domain names 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).

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <myprismahealthenrollment.com>, <prismahealthopenenrollment.com>, <myprismaheathopenenrollment.com> and <myprismahealthopenenrolment.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 3, 2024