DECISION
STChealth, LLC v. [Registrant]
Claim Number: FA2502002139749
PARTIES
Complainant is STChealth, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Gabrielle M. Morlock of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is [Registrant] ("Respondent"), Unknown.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <stchealthjobs.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
PANEL
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2025; Forum received payment on February 12, 2025.
On February 12, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <stchealthjobs.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 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@stchealthjobs.com.
Also on February 13, 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 6, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the STC mark, and other marks that it uses which incorporate the STC mark, based on its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described below. Additionally Complainant claims rights in the STC mark at common law by its extensive use of the mark for over 36 years in its business providing software solutions including vaccine tracking and management software.
Complainant adds that it uses the STC mark in its marketing and advertising including on its website at <stchome.com>.
Complainant's marketing and Internet presence includes promotion on social media platforms including Facebook (having over 300 followers), Instagram, X, YouTube and Linked.
Complainant submits that as a result of its use and marketing of the mark, STC has become a recognizable name in the medical field and has developed a national reputation for quality services in its industry.
Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STC mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety.
In this regard, Complainant argues that it is well-settled that where a domain name at issue incorporates a complainant's mark in its entirety, it follows that the domain name at is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). In this regard, Complainant refers to the decision in Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case D2000-0163.
Complainant adds that the addition of a generic or descriptive term, in this case the word "jobs" is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's STC mark. Complainant cites the decision in Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org, FA2409002115468 (Forum Oct. 12, 2024) ("Respondent's <thriventjobs.com> domain name uses Complainant's entire THRIVENT mark and adds the word "jobs" and the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).[…] The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <thriventjobs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THRIVENT mark.").
Moreover, Complainant argues that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the STC mark, citing WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 § 1.11.1 ("The applicable Top Level Domain ("TLD") in a domain name (e.g., ".com", ".club", ".nyc") is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.").
Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that
· Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name;
· Respondent does not attempt to identify itself as "STC" in the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name;
· prior panels established under the Policy have held that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain when there was no evidence indicating that the respondent was known by the disputed domain e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248189542 / Gary Gasgstetter, WIPO Case D2020-2778 ("Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as 'accenture.' Previous UDRP panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name for example if the WhoIs information was not similar to the disputed domain name. There is not any evidence in the case file showing that Respondent may be commonly known as 'accenture.");
· Respondent is not sponsored or endorsed by Complainant;
· Complainant has never authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant's STC mark.
Additionally in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant exhibits a screen capture of the web location to which the disputed domain name currently resolves. It is merely a blank screen displaying the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that the screen capture demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as the address of an active web page.
Complainant submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy, referring to Renault SAS v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Jota Tresele, WIPO Case No. D2020-2081 ("The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant's trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive page. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.").
Furthermore, in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has exhibited copy email correspondence that includes email messages sent by Respondent using the disputed domain name as its email address.
Complainant alleges that the exhibited email messages prove that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to perpetrate a job-related phishing scheme to collect personal information from individuals, and to then scam them by requesting they send Respondent money for job-related equipment. Complainant argues that such use does not constitute bona fide use or create a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name for Respondent for the purposes of the Policy. See Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org, FA2409002115468 (Forum Oct. 12, 2024)("Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <thriventjobs.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it in phishing emails to pass off as Complainant in a job scam. Using a disputed domain name to conduct a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).)"
Specifically, in the email messages Respondent, impersonating Complainant, purports to offers employment opportunities in Complainant's business to the targeted individuals. To qualify, Respondent requests an equipment fee from the targeted individuals and requests their personal information.
Complainant submits that such use of the disputed domain name within the email address, does not constitute a bona fide use or a legitimate interest for the purposes of the Policy.
Complainant thirdly alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in order to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant and its STC mark by attempting to confuse the public as to the source and/or ownership of the disputed domain name.
Complainant asserts that it has spent years building its immunization software business and that Complainant and its STC mark are recognized nationally and it is difficult to envisage any possible good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent: See HDR Global Trading Limited v. A Si Di Fen Teng Ren, FA2112001975598 (Forum Dec. 31, 2021) ("In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy.").
Complainant further argues that the registrant of the disputed domain name had actual knowledge of Respondent and its STC mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. Complainant submits that this is evidenced by the fact that the STC mark is incorporated within the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has used the email account created using the disputed domain name to send the exhibited fraudulent messages impersonating Complainant.
It is contended that Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name is sufficient to support an inference that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. See, e.g., Valio Oy v. Muhammad Tayab, Dairy Engineering Int'l, WIPO Case D2017-2376 ("Respondent is highly likely to have had actual knowledge of Complainant's famous VALIO mark, as evidenced by Respondent's use of the identical mark in the disputed domain name. The fact that Respondent registered a domain name which incorporates the trademark of a well-known company is alone sufficient to give rise to an inference of bad faith.").
Further, it is contended that Respondent's bad faith is demonstrated by its use of the disputed domain as part of a scheme, impersonating Complainant, aimed at defrauding individuals who believe they are applying for employment positions with Complainant.
Specifically, Complainant again refers to the exhibited email messages which show that Respondent was attempting to defraud the public into making payments for equipment that was never to be supplied, and requesting that targeted individuals provide their personal data as part of a phishing scheme, by impersonating Complainant. See. e.g., HDR Global Trading Limited v. Host Master / 1337 Services LLC, FA 1859000 (Forum Sept. 28, 2019)(finding that using a disputed domain name to pass off services as complainant's is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).).
Complainant submits that such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), citing HDR Global Trading Limited v. Javier Harrison, FA 1920532 (Forum Dec. 10, 2020) (use of a disputed domain name to pass oneself of as a complainant as part of a fraudulent scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).);
Additionally, Complainant submits that the record shows that Respondent has created an MX record for the disputed domain name for the purposes of sending emails impersonating Complainant. Prior panels have held that the use of an MX record for such purposes constitutes bad faith. See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. VIMALANATHAN K, FA2401002081174 (Forum Feb. 25, 2024) ("The creation of an MX record is for the purposes of sending and receiving mails. Given the fame of Complainant's DELL mark, and notwithstanding that Respondent has not taken any steps to establish a website to which the disputed domain name resolves but instead has taken further steps to arrange to use the disputed domain name to send and receive email messages, this Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith with the intention of carrying out a phishing scheme as alleged.").
Complainant adds that the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to any active webpage, and it is well established that where a domain name at issue does not resolve to an active website, a panel may infer that it is registered and used in bad faith.
Finally, Complainant submits that Respondent's use of a privacy service to hide its identity on the published WhoIs, is persuasive evidence of bad faith registration and use. See, e.g., Groupe IRCEM v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, White & Case, WIPO Case D2018-2330 ("[T]he attempts by the Respondent to hide its identity behind a privacy shield and the absence of any response by the Respondent to the Complainant's emails are all indicators of use in bad faith.").
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a software solutions provider, offering vaccine tracking and management software solutions in the healthcare industry using the STC mark and other marks incorporating STC, for which it holds the following trademark and service mark registrations:
· United States registered trademark and service mark STC, registration number 3,978,062, registered on the Principal Register on June 14, 2011, for goods and services in international classes 9 and 42;
· United States registered service mark STC|ONE, registration number 5,845,546, registered on the Principal Register on August 27, 2019, for services in international class 42;
· United States registered service mark STC|LINKS, registration number 6,043,815, registered on the Principal Register on April 28, 2020 for services in international class 42.
Complainant also claims common law rights in STC and other marks incorporating the element STC.
Complainant has an established internet presence and is the owner of domain name <STChealth.com> which resolves to Complainant's website.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2024. It resolves to an inactive webpage but is being used as an email address by Respondent in a phishing scam targeting unsuspecting applicants deceiving them that they are being considered for employment in Complainant's business.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
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
Complainant has provided uncontested evidence to prove that on the balance of probabilities it has rights in the STC mark, and other marks incorporating the STC mark as an element, established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark registrations described above and use of the mark in its software business.
The disputed domain name <stchealthjobs.com> consists only of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the element "jobs", and the gTLD extension <.com>.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant's STC mark in its entirety, and it is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may find that the complainant succeeds in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Therefore, Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STC mark.
For completeness it may be added that neither the additional term "jobs" nor the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
It is also well established that for the purposes of comparing a domain name at issue with a trademark relied upon by a complainant, a gTLD extension <.com> may generally be ignored as it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the STC trademark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In its submissions Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that it has owned and used the STC mark since at least June 14, 2011, whereas the confusingly similar disputed domain name was not created until December 15, 2024.
The evidence is that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name to establish a website but has used it to create an email account to target unsuspecting victims who are looking for employment.
The email messages which Complainant has exhibited show that Respondent was using the disputed domain names in what was on the balance of probabilities a phishing fraud since December 19, 2024, just five days after the registration of the disputed domain name.
It is therefore implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was not aware of Complainant, its business and its STC mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.
This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to target and take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill in the STC mark.
In addition to the use of the disputed domain name to perpetrate the fraud on the balance of probabilities, Respondent has damaged Complainant's reputation by impersonating Complainant in the exhibited email messages targeting unsuspecting victims. This constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
In addition to the particularly egregious use of the disputed domain name to target vulnerable people looking for employment, there are other aspects of this case that also lead to a finding of bad faith use, namely the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent while creating an MX record facilitate the sending of fraudulent emails, and Respondent's use of a privacy service to conceal its identity in the above-described circumstances.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <stchealthjobs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
_____________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: March 10, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page