DECISION

 

Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun

Claim Number: FA2501002133368

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Sarah E. Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States. Respondent is Quan Zhongjun ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <jackensackmeridianhealth.org>, registered with Cosmotown, 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 3, 2025; Forum received payment on January 3, 2025.

 

On January 6, 2025, Cosmotown, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <jackensackmeridianhealth.org> domain name is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cosmotown, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cosmotown, 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 January 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jackensackmeridianhealth.org. Also on January 13, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 February 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is an integrated network of healthcare providers that provides services through hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and other services and facilities. Complainant is the largest healthcare provider in New Jersey. Complainant has used HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as 2016, following a merger between Hackensack University Health Network and Meridian Health. Complainant owns multiple United States trademark registrations for HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH in standard character form, and also asserts common law rights in the mark.

 

The disputed domain name <jackensackmeridianhealth.org> was registered in January 2021. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links related to healthcare services. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant alleges, citing prior decisions under the Policy, that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to well-known trademarks, including Complainant's HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <jackensackmeridianhealth.org> is confusingly similar to its HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <jackensackmeridianhealth.org> incorporates Complainant's registered HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark, omitting the spaces, substituting a letter "J" for the initial "H," and adding the ".org" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Transamerica Corp. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co., FA 2079535 (Forum Feb. 11, 2024) (finding <yransamerica.com> confusingly similar to TRANSAMERICA); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co, FA 2069584 (Forum Dec. 4, 2023) (finding <hackensockmeridianhealth.org> confusingly similar to HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun / Juanita Co., FA 2059058 (Forum Sept. 24, 2023) (finding <hackensuckmeridianhealth.org>, <hickensackmeridianhealth.org>, <hackinsackmeridianhealth.org>, <hackonsackmeridianhealth.org>, and <hackensackmiridianhealth.org> confusingly similar to HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used for the sole apparent purpose of displaying pay-per-click links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Zhichao / Zhichao Yang, FA 2132908 (Forum Jan. 28, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co., supra (same); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co, FA 2069584, supra (same); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun / Juanita Co., FA 2059058, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's registered mark, in an obvious instance of typosquatting, and is using it to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Zhichao / Zhichao Yang, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Transamerica Corp. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co., supra (same); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun, Juanita Co, FA 2069584, supra (same); Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Quan Zhongjun / Juanita Co., FA 2059058, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2025