DECISION

 

Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. Robin Miller

Claim Number: FA2409002114341

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Robin Miller ("Respondent"), Missouri, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cadlnalhealth.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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 September 5, 2024; Forum received payment on September 5, 2024.

 

On September 6, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 September 9, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 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@cadlnalhealth.com. Also on September 9, 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 October 1, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC owns numerous registrations in the United States and around the world for the mark CARDINAL HEALTH.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's incontestable U.S. trademark registrations for the CARDINAL HEALTH mark constitute conclusive evidence of the validity of these marks as distinctive indicators of source and of Complainant's exclusive right to use the CARDINAL HEALTH mark with the goods and services specified in the registrations.

The domain name <cadlnalhealth.com> is a clear typosquatting of the CARDINAL HEALTH mark. The only differences are that the Respondent has removed an "r" from the term "CARDINAL"; used an "l" in place of the "i" in the term "CARDINAL"  and added the gTLD ".com". As such, the at-issue domain name is nearly identical in appearance, and identical in sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not own any trademark rights in the at-issue domain name nor is Respondent commonly known by either the business name "Cadlnal Health" or the at-issue domain name. Further, Respondent has never been authorized to use the CARDINAL HEALTH mark. Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of, nor a bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with the domain name. Instead, Respondent is using the domain name's website to impersonate Complainant in order to fraudulently phish for personal and/or financial information and has mimicked Complainant's genuine website to deceive visitors into falsely believing that the domain name and associated website are operated by Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered <cadlnalhealth.com> with knowledge of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark since the mark is well known, widely advertised in the United States and other countries around the world, was registered long before the domain name, and because the Respondent's domain name addresses a copy of Complainant's genuine website. Additionally, the <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name has resolved to a website that impersonates Complainant by copying Complainant's website in its entirety, including displaying Complainant's trademark and Complainant's logo. The copying of Complainant's website and impersonation extends to the inclusion of an "About Me" page, which also shows content copied directly from Complainant's website. The links on the website point visitors to Respondent's website, including log-in pages that allow unsuspecting users to provide personal information which appears to be a phishing scheme. Respondent's attempt to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH trademark.

 

Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's genuine website to impersonate Complainant in order to phish for personal and/or financial 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 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 name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations and claims to have other registrations worldwide for its CARDINAL HEALTH trademark. Any of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled/mistyped version of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH, trademark less its domain name impermissible space, where the trademark's letter "r" is removed and its letter "i" is replaced by the visually similar letter "l." The domain name concludes with the ".com" top level which is irrelevant to confusingly similar analysis. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); 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 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 Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <cadlnalhealth.com> indicates that "Robin Miller" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name. As such, 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 uses the confusingly similar <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's copycat website includes a "log-in" page that allows unsuspecting internet users to provide personal and financial information and appears to facilitate a phishing scheme aimed at deceptively collecting such information. Respondent's use of <cadlnalhealth.com> in this manner is neither 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 Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); 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); see also, 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. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith under the Policy.

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name and referenced website so that Respondent might pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name is sponsored by Complainant. The website includes a log in page where site visitors may enter personal and financial data. Respondent thereby defrauds third parties into giving up such data to Respondent under the pretense that they are dealing with Complainant. Respondent's phishing scheme demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. 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. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the malformed string in a domain name hoping that internet users will accidently type such string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or as in the instant dispute that some internet users will misread the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with the domain name's target trademark. Respondent's intentional misspelling of CARDINAL HEALTH within Respondent's <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name is indicative of Respondent's desire to use the domain name to inappropriately exploit Complainant's trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in CARDINAL HEALTH when it registered <cadlnalhealth.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark, from Respondent's inclusion of an overt misspelling of Complainant's mark in the domain name, and from Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to address a copy of Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of <cadlnalhealth.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in CARDINAL HEALTH further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use. 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, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); 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 <cadlnalhealth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 2, 2024