DECISION

 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Haryati Haryati

Claim Number: FA2508002174184

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Catherine E. Maxson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Haryati Haryati ("Respondent"), Cambodia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kphearingservices.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Christopher S. Gibson and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelists and Paul M. DeCicco, as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 28, 2025; Forum received payment on August 28, 2025.

 

On September 2, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kphearingservices.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 September 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 24, 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@kphearingservices.com. Also on September 4, 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 October 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Christopher S. Gibson and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist and Paul M. DeCicco as Chair.

 

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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., is a non-profit public benefit corporation which provides health care services to its members through Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ("KFH") (a non-profit public benefit corporation) and eight independent medical groups (the "Permanente Medical Groups" or "PMGs"). Collectively, these separate legal entities, Kaiser, KFH, and the PMGs, operate under the trade name and trademark "Kaiser Permanente" and are widely recognized by the acronym "KP".

 

Complainant owns several trademark registrations in the United States for marks containing KP.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website appearing to be associated with Complainant. A risk of consumer confusion arises not only from the wording in the domain name, but also because of the content on the website associated with the domain name. After Kaiser's registration for the <kphearingservices.com> lapsed, the name servers associated with the <kphearingservices.com> continued to point to hosted Kaiser content. Thus, the domain name currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant's content, the KAISER PERMANENTE mark, and Kaiser's Happy Family Logo, and therefore appears to be a legitimate Kaiser website even though it is not.

 

The <kphearingservices.com> domain name creates serious cyber security concerns and risks with a potential to deceive consumers into providing personal information or clicking on malicious links, identity theft, malware infection, and other fraudulent activities, by pretending to be Complainant.

 

Respondent's domain is confusingly similar to the Kaiser marks. Complainant has rights in the marks KP and other Kaiser marks, all of which are distinctive and well recognized. Complainant has obtained U.S. trademark registrations for many of the Kaiser marks, including the KP mark, as well as registrations elsewhere in the world. The at-issue domain name contains the famous KP mark and uses it in a direct attempt to confuse consumers and Kaiser Permanente employees into thinking that the domain name is owned by Kaiser. The website, formerly owned by Kaiser, continues to display Kaiser's KAISER PERMANENTE mark and Happy Family Logo in connection with a medical clinic that offers hearing services. The website specifically references Complainant multiple times, further confusing consumers by suggesting that Respondent's website is associated with the domain is associated with, affiliated with, or authorized by Complainant – which it is not.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the Kaiser marks; Respondent has never legitimately used a name or domain name containing any of Complainant's marks in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or any of Complainant's mark. Registration of a domain name incorporating another's famous mark does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, but rather constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Respondent plainly had knowledge of Complainant's marks when it registered the at-issue domain name, given that the website associated with the domain name previously belonged to Complainant and the continued use of the same content and intellectual property is a clear attempt to free ride on Complainant's considerable goodwill. Respondent is posing as Complainant and is misleading consumers into believing that it provides hearing services and, further, calling itself the "Kaiser Permanente Hearing Services of Colorado." Respondent's choice in registering the name cannot be explained but as a misappropriation of the Complainant's trademarks.

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain in bad faith. Several factors support a finding of bad faith. First, the at-issue domain name and the website associated with the domain name each prominently use Complainant's marks. Respondent is using <kphearingservices.com> to intentionally attract consumers and Complainant's employees to the website for commercial gain "by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site" under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Next, Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name to perpetrate fraud by passing itself off as Complainant is all in bad faith. Additionally, Respondent may have registered the domain name "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 . . . for valuable consideration in excess of [Registrant's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in KP and KP logo designs as well as other trademarks concerning its healthcare related business including KAISER PERMANENTE.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in KP.

 

Respondent via the at-issue domain name controls the former website content of Complainant. Respondent thus uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant so as to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <kphearingservices.com> website where, posing as Complainant, Respondent purports to offer healthcare services similar to Complainant's offering.

 

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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registrations for KP establishes Complainant's rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). 

 

The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's KP trademark followed by the terms "hearing" and "services," or the term "hearing services," with all followed by the ".com" top level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent's <kphearingservices.com> domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <kphearingservices.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KP trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of <kphearingservices.com>. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <kphearingservices.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Haryati Haryati" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <kphearingservices.com> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears as if it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Indeed, the website content now controlled by Respondent originated from Complainant when Complainant owned the at-issue domain name. Complainant's KP mark, design mark and KAISER PERMANENTE trademark are prominently displayed on the <kphearingservices.com> website. The website is boldly titled Hearing Services of Colorado and claims to provide pediatric audiology care. Respondent thus claims to provide services similar or identical to those services now offered by Complainant. Using the confusingly similar domain name and legacy website, Respondent effectively passes itself off as being affiliated with Complainant. Doing so causes internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its website are endorsed or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's continued use of <kphearingservices.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of 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). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <kphearingservices.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website once controlled by Complainant. The website concerns health care services currently offered by Complainant, displays Complainant's logo and trademark, and claims to be sponsored by KAISER PERMANENTE. Respondent's use of <kphearingservices.com> to pose as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to divert internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website where Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <kphearingservices.com> domain name and Complainant's KP trademark. Respondent's use of <kphearingservices.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA1905001841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Moreover, Respondent appears to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the KP mark when it registered <kphearingservices.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's KP trademark and given Respondent's unauthorized use of the <kphearingservices.com> domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's logo and KAISER PERMANENTE trademarks and offering services similar to those offered by Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in KP and related trademarks further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <kphearingservices.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Chair

Christopher S. Gibson, Panelist

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

 

Dated: October 10, 2025