DECISION

 

Waystar Technologies, Inc. v. Registration Private

Claim Number: FA2507002168909

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Waystar Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Ashley N. Klein of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, United States. Respondent is Registration Private ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2025; Forum received payment on July 31, 2025.

 

On August 4, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.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 August 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@waystaraltitudeai.com and postmaster@waystarinnovationlab.com. Also on August 5, 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 registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 26, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant provides technology to facilitate healthcare and insurance claim payments. Complainant works with more than 450,000 providers and conducts more than 2 billion payment transactions annually. Complainant has used the WAYSTAR mark for its services since at least as early as 2018, including through its website at <waystar.com>. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for WAYSTAR in standard character form that issued in 2019. Complainant also owns pending trademark applications for WAYSTAR ALTITUDEAI and WAYSTAR INNOVATION LAB, filed in March 2025.

 

The disputed domain names <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.com> were registered in March 2025, in each instance on the same day that Complainant applied to register the corresponding trademark. Both domain names are registered in the name of a privacy registration service ("Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot"), with Respondent ("Registration Private") as the underlying registrant. The domain names redirect to Dynadot web pages that advertise the domain names for sale, in each instance for a price of $2,988. Complainant states that the asking prices were temporarily increased to $25,000 each after Complainant expressed interest in purchasing the domain names. Complainant states further that because of the nature of its business, it is concerned that its customers may be common targets of phishing schemes, and alleges that Respondent registered the domain names with that purpose in mind. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not licensed to use Complainant's WAYSTAR mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.com> are confusingly similar to its WAYSTAR mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 June 2, 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

Each of the disputed domain names <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WAYSTAR trademark, adding additional terms also used by Complainant in its business ("altitude AI" and "innovation lab," with spaces omitted) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Waystar Technology, Inc. v. Matthew Weaver, FA 2168907 (Forum Aug. 25, 2025) (finding <waystarai.com> confusingly similar to WAYSTAR); DeepMind Technologies Ltd. v. Kay Jones, FA 2113033 (Forum Sept. 3, 2024) (finding <deepmindailabs.com> confusingly similar to DEEPMIND); Warner Media, LLC v. Gerald Warner / Warner Brothers Group, FA 1842681 (Forum June 26, 2019) (finding <warnermediainnovationlab.com> confusingly similar to WARNER MEDIA). The Panel considers the disputed domain names 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 names, 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).

 

Each of the disputed domain names incorporates Complainant's registered WAYSTAR mark without authorization. Their sole apparent use has been to redirect to websites at which the domain names are offered for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Domain Admin, FA 2159607 (Forum July 8, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., FA 2122805 (Forum Nov. 26, 2024) (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(ii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), 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 used a privacy registration service to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's registered WAYSTAR mark, and appears to have used a different privacy registration service for the underlying registration information. Both domain names correspond to WAYSTAR-formative marks that Complainant had applied to register on the very same day. The sole apparent use to which the domain names have been put is to redirect to pages offering the domain names for sale at what the Panel infers to be a substantial premium over Respondent's out-of-pocket registration costs. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Domain Admin, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

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 <waystaraltitudeai.com> and <waystarinnovationlab.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2025