DECISION
Centene Corporation c/o Centene Management Company, LLC v. Massimo Puglisi
Claim Number: FA2510002181089
PARTIES
Complainant is Centene Corporation c/o Centene Management Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Renee Reuter at Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Massimo Puglisi ("Respondent"), Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fidelisinsurancecompany.com>, registered with Register SpA.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 6, 2025. Forum received payment on October 6, 2025.
On October 8, 2025, Register SpA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name is registered with Register SpA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register SpA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register SpA 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 October 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 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@fidelisinsurancecompany.com. Also on October 8, 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 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 has spent thousands of dollars in the United States promoting FIDELIS branded services and has taken significant steps to register and maintain a family of trademark registrations to protect the FIDELIS marks.
Respondent's <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FIDELIS marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant did not provide permission for the owner of the domain name to register Complainant's trademarks as domain names or use them. Respondent has not made any use of the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent currently is passively holding the domain name. This does not fit within any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b) but given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), passively holding a confusingly similar domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). See also Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Thomas Young / Motorcycles of Charlotte, FA 2159452 (Forum July 7, 2025) (finding that passive holding of a domain name registered over twenty years after complainant had registered and used the mark in commerce is acceptable evidence of bad faith).
The domain name fully incorporated at least one of the FIDELIS marks. The added descriptive and generic terms "insurance company" limits the probable uses of the domain name to services ancillary to the services associated with the FIDELIS marks, namely, "Administration of health care plans".
Complainant's FIDELIS marks are supported by trademark registrations in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and have been widely used in the United States and in several other countries. Complainant's use and registrations predate Registrant's ownership of the domain name. Two of Complainant's trademarks existed over twenty years before the domain name was registered. Thus, Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the FIDELIS marks and registered the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is likely to have actual knowledge of Complainant's long-time use of the FIDELIS marks before Respondent registered the domain name. The above facts establish that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 shown that it has rights in the registered mark FIDELIS, namely USPTO Reg. No. 3,775,057, registered on April 13, 2010 for "Administration of health care plans", in International Class 36, claiming first use in commerce in 2000. Complainant also has a FIDELIS CARE word mark (USPTO Reg. No. 3,633,561), and a FIDELIS CARE word and design mark (USPTO Reg. No. 3,633,569), both registered in 2009 for the same services, claiming first use in commerce in 1993 and 1994 respectively. "CARE" is disclaimed.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.
The Panel finds Respondent's <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's FIDELIS mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive words "insurance company", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In light of the Panel's findings below, it is unnecessary to consider this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
Complainant contends that Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name, registered many years after the registration and first use of Complainant's FIDELIS and FIDELIS CARE marks, demonstrates registration and use in bad faith, citing Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) and Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Thomas Young / Motorcycles of Charlotte, FA 2159452 (Forum July 7, 2025).
As noted in Section 3.7, UDRP Perspectives, Motsnyi and Muscovitch (July 17, 2024), udrpperspectives.org : "passive holding" is [scil "as"] a concept is a product of the Telstra case [Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003] and for it to apply, the Telstra test must be met. Crucially, the Telstra test requires a strong reputation of the mark and the impossibility of conceiving any plausible or actual good faith use of the particular domain name. Such a determination would generally arise only where the disputed domain name corresponds to a particularly distinctive and famous mark. Where a domain name is unused, it may be considered to be "passively held" but that alone does not amount to bad faith use absent meeting the narrow requirements of the Telstra test.
Further, as noted in Section 3.4, UDRP Perspectives:
"There is no place for the concept of "constructive notice" of trademarks under the Policy. The essence of a Complaint is an allegation of bad faith targeting of the Complainant. For that bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner. If the registrant is unaware of the existence of the trademark owner, it cannot sensibly be regarded as having any bad faith intentions directed at the Complainant. If the existence of a trademark registration was sufficient to give the Respondent knowledge, thousands of innocent domain name registrants would be unjustifiably subject to UDRP proceedings."
In Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA95314, cited by Complainant, both parties were located in the United Kingdom, where the complainant had registered its marks. The panelist found:
"Passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that given the long use and fame of the Complainant's mark, the Respondent's conduct is evidence of bad faith).
Registration of a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization and no legitimate purpose to utilize the mark reveals bad faith. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name in question is "so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith").
Based on the above, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent."
In Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Thomas Young / Motorcycles of Charlotte, also cited by Complainant, the respondent was passively holding the disputed domain name at the time of the complaint but was found by the panelist to have previously registered and used it in bad faith, as prescribed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The panelist found:
"The mere fact of passive holding does not automatically result in a finding of bad faith. Respondent's intent to trade off of the goodwill of the Complainant in doing so must also be proven, and it has been. Bad faith registration of this domain name has been established. Since the Policy requires a complainant to prove both registration and a continuing use in bad faith, the question next arises whether Respondent's passive holding of the domain name constitutes a continuing use in bad faith. The Policy requirement, "is being used in bad faith," can include passive use. Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. 2000-0003 (".. . the concept of a domain name 'being used in bad faith' is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept."). In this case, there is no evidence that Respondent is holding or using the domain name under any of the specific circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), so the question arises whether the facts present in this case support a finding of continuing bad faith use on some other basis.
The Panel has already found that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the MOTORCYCLES OF CHARLOTTE mark when it registered the domain name, and that knowledge certainly continues. Also, Respondent is holding the domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, without itself having any legitimate connection with Complainant or its services, which in and of itself has been held to be evidence of bad faith. Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama / Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) ("the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith."). Finally, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible legitimate use of the domain name that would not infringe on Complainant's rights. Respondent's continuing passive holding of the domain name is in bad faith."
According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶4.8:
"May a panel perform independent research in assessing the case merits?
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision."
The Panel has conducted a search of the USPTO database, which shows many live registrations by third parties for the mark FIDELIS, including for charitable services; bourbon; dietary supplements for dogs; bandanas, shower caps; musical instruments and window blinds.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the mark FIDELIS, comprising the Latin word for "faithful", is not alone distinctive of Complainant's services.
Complainant has provided no evidence of any reputation of its marks and, contrary to the requirements of the Telstra test, it is possible to conceive of many plausible and actual good faith uses of the <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name that would not infringe Complainant's rights. The Panel does not accept Complainant's submission that the added descriptive and generic terms "insurance company" limits the probable uses of the domain name to services ancillary to those associated with Complainant's FIDELIS marks, namely, "Administration of health care plans".
Further, Complainant has provided no evidence in support of its claim that its marks have been used in countries other than the United States. The Panel is not persuaded that Respondent, located in Italy, was aware of Complainant's FIDELIS and/or FIDELIS CARE marks when Respondent registered the <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name and finds that, taking all the circumstances of this case into account, Complainant has failed to show that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.
Under these circumstance, the Panel finds that Respondent's hitherto passive use of the domain name does not demonstrate registration and use in bad faith.
Complainant has not established this element.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
The Panel finds that, through its Counsel, Complainant must have been aware of the Latin dictionary word "fidelis", meaning "faithful", and its use by others in many United States trademarks. Complainant cited passive holding cases which noted the importance of showing that the mark in question is famous or well-known, yet provided no such evidence in relation to any of its marks.
Further, Complainant failed to provide any evidence of its claimed use of its trademarks outside the United States, such as to show a likelihood that Respondent, in Italy, was likely aware of Complainant's marks when registering the domain name and did so with intent to trade off the reputation of Complainant's marks.
Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fidelisinsurancecompany.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page