DECISION

 

Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. v. Gold Donna / Intermountain Health

Claim Number: FA2502002139539

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John D. Lovi of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Gold Donna / Intermountain Health ("Respondent"), Utah, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <intermountainhealthscare.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2025; Forum received payment on February 10, 2025.

 

On February 11, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <intermountainhealthscare.org> 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 February 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2025 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@intermountainhealthscare.org. Also on February 12, 2025, 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 5, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it was established in 1975 after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated fifteen hospitals as a system to the intermountain community. Complainant has since evolved into a regional system of 24 hospitals, approximately 200 clinics, and several urgent care facilities in Utah and Idaho. As a not-for-profit corporation, Complainant's mission is to improve the health of the people in the communities they serve. As part of their commitment to the community, Complainant is continuously improving the scope and quality of care they provide and investing into the community. For over 40 years, Complainant has been one of the nation's leading hospital systems, and its INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark has become internationally known well known and famous. Complainant asserts rights in the mark INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE through its registration in the United States in 1995.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (a letter "s" is added), together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".org." Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant's mark. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website, and Respondent used it to send e-mail message purporting to originate from Complainant's "Talent Acquisition Partner" to job applicants, impersonating one of Complainant's employees. The attachment to the phishing email displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the subject domain name in bad faith pursuant because it is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website, and it is used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE and uses it to provide healthcare services.

 

Complainant's registration of its mark dates back to 1995.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website, and it is used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. The attachment to the phishing email displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo.

 

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 disputed domain name merely adds a letter "s" to Complainant's INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark, together with the generic top-level domain name ("gTLD") ".org". Including a trademark, even if misspelled, in a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant's mark in any way. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name. 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). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant's mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as "Gold Donna / Intermountain Health" but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

 

The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent used it to send an e-mail message purporting to originate from Complainant's "Talent Acquisition Partner" to job applicants, impersonating one of Complainant's employees. Panels have found such use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The disputed domain name redirects to Complainant's legitimate website. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) ("Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. v. Oumaimaa Boutriouya, FA 1858238 (Forum Sept. 24, 2019) ("Use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant in furtherance of phishing is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). Thus the Panel finds Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant's mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

Further, also as already noted, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant's legitimate website. This constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. M D, FA 1878566 (Forum Feb. 14, 2020) ("Redirecting traffic to a complainant's website may constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also D Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.

 

In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website, and the attachment to the phishing email displayed Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, by merely adding a letter "s" to Complainant's mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). Thus the Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also.

 

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 <intermountainhealthscare.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 5, 2025