DECISION

 

Cerner Innovation Inc. v. wei zhang

Claim Number: FA2508002170930

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Cerner Innovation Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is wei zhang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cernehealth.com>, registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 12, 2025; Forum received payment on August 12, 2025.

 

On August 15, 2025, TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cernehealth.com> domain name is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com 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 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@cernehealth.com. Also on August 18, 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 September 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

(i) Complainant, created in 1979, has focused on the intersection of health care and information technology to connect people and systems worldwide for improved healthcare management. As a result of Complainant's long use and promotion of the CERNER mark, it has become famous and widely recognized, particularly in the healthcare industry. Complainant has rights in the CERNER mark, inter alia, through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,696,691, registered October 13, 2009). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CERNER mark, as it merely removes the final letter "r" from Complainant's mark and adds the descriptive term "health," together with the ".com" gTLD.

 

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark. Respondent's use is not for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name redirects users to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes referred to as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware" or ARRM. In this form of registration abuse, users are ultimately forwarded to a site that attempts to install malware on the user's computer. Such conduct has tarnished and diluted Complainant's mark.

 

(iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolution of the disputed domain name to various third-party pages and malware supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Through these redirections, Respondent is seeking to disrupt Complainant's business and obtain commercial gain from its registration and use of the disputed domain name. The presence of a mail exchange (MX) record associated with the disputed domain name further indicates Respondent's bad faith intent. This presents a real risk that Respondent may engage in a phishing scheme, aiming to mislead Internet users into believing they are dealing with Complainant or its authorized representatives. Respondent is fully responsible for the content to which the domain resolves and for its technical operation. Despite the obvious falsity of Respondent's conduct, any assertion that its current use of the disputed domain name is in good faith would provide no shelter and would be wholly untenable. Respondent is engaged in a pattern of bad faith domain registrations targeting trademarks owned by others.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 17, 2018.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the CERNER mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,696,691, registered October 13, 2009).

 

3. The disputed domain name redirects users to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes known as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware" or ARRM.

 

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 asserts rights in the CERNER mark, inter alia, through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,696,691, registered October 13, 2009). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the CERNER mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name, <cernehealth.com>, is confusingly similar to its CERNER mark because it merely removes the final letter "r" from Complainant's mark and adds the descriptive term "health," together with the ".com" gTLD.

 

The Panel notes that the omission or addition of a single letter as well as a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Tanya Moulton, FA2303002034214 (Forum April 11, 2023) ("When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another's mark, adding a single letter is insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity."; finding <fwebsteronline.com> domain name confusingly similar to WEBSTER and WEBSTER ONLINE trademarks); ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) ("The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it differs from Complainant's mark by merely adding the letter 'L' . . . ").

 

The Panel further notes that the addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name from the incorporated mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CERNER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark. Additionally, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS data, can be used as evidence to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS information lists "wei zhang" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name redirects users to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes referred to as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware" or ARRM. In this form of registration abuse, users are ultimately forwarded to a site that attempts to install malware on the user's computer.

 

When a disputed domain name is used for malicious purposes, such as distributing malware, it does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website together with screenshots of multiple subsequent websites redirected from multiple prior websites. These demonstrate that when the disputed domain name is entered into the same browser multiple times, Internet users are redirected to other third-party websites unrelated to, or in competition with, Complainant and are ultimately forwarded to a site that attempts to install malware on the user's computer.

 

Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case on the foregoing grounds. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut this prima facie showing, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the domain is employed to distribute malware. Where a domain name is used for malicious purposes such as malware distribution, panels have consistently found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence supporting these claims, including the use of the disputed domain name to induce Internet users to install suspicious malware. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent's conduct disrupts Complainant's business by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to its and third-parties' websites inducing users to install malware thereby harming the reputation of Complainant and thereby gaining commercial benefits and constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in its well-known CERNER mark as a result of Complainant's extensive use of the mark which long predates the date on which Respondent acquired the disputed domain name.

 

Actual knowledge may be established through a totality of circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant, created in 1979, has focused on the intersection of health care and information technology to connect people and systems worldwide for improved healthcare management. In 1986, CERNER went public on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol CERN. Today, Cerner solutions are used in more than 35 countries by approximately 694,000 physicians and more than 2.2 million caregivers and is one of the most prominent market leaders when it comes to healthcare digitization. As a result of Complainant's long use and promotion of the CERNER mark, it has become famous and widely recognized, particularly in the healthcare industry.

 

Given the notoriety of Complainant's CERNER mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. This supports a finding of bad faith registration under 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 <cernehealth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2025