DECISION

 

Quest Diagnostics Investments, LLC v. WhoisGuardService.com

Claim Number: FA2511002189264

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Quest Diagnostics Investments, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eleanor M. Yost of Carlton Fields, PA, Florida, USA. Respondent is WhoisGuardService.com ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <questdiagnostics.co>, registered with InterNetX GmbH.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 17, 2025; Forum received payment on November 17, 2025.

 

On November 18, 2025, InterNetX GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <questdiagnostics.co> domain name is registered with InterNetX GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. InterNetX GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the InterNetX GmbH 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 November 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 9, 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@questdiagnostics.co. Also on November 19, 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 December 10, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 provides diagnostic information services by reference to the trademark, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, and submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it has not been authorized to use the trademark and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. It states that Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves to a webpage with links to Complainant and to services competitive with those provided by Complainant. Complainant submits that upon information and belief Respondent receives financial gain from those links when users click on them. 

 

Furthermore, Complainant submits that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and then used it with bad faith intent to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's rights for commercial gain. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides diagnostic information services;

2.       Respondent registered the domain name on July 20, 2010; and

3.       the domain name resolves to a webpage with healthcare links including a link to Complainant's own services.

 

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. 

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant states that QUEST DIAGNOSTICS is registered in Canada and the European Union but there is no evidence to support that claim. Complainant states that the mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and provides copies of three certificates of registration. None is in the name of Complainant. Reg. No. 3,107,154, registered June 20, 2006, is in the name of what may be a related company but there is no explanation of the relationship, if any, between the owner as shown on the certificate and Complainant. The companies do not show a common address.

 

Complainant joins that cohort which expects the panelist to make its own research to uncover or verify trademark rights. The risk is early denial of a complaint (see, for example, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, which states at ¶ 1.2.1 that proof of trademark rights as a "threshold requirement" of the Policy). However, the Panel has in this case made its own review of USPTO records to discover that Reg. No. 3,107,154 now stands in the name of Complainant, something which should have been included in the Complaint.  The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights.

 

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name:

 

 "… is identical to Complainant's [trademark] because it uses "questdiagnostics", except changes the gTLD to ".co" instead of ".com", which is the gTLD of Complainant's actual website. Creating a domain name that takes advantage of common errors of Internet users, such as merely adding a gTLD to a registered mark does not distinguish the domain from confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)." 

 

Although the Panel agrees that the domain name is identical to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy, the above submission is confounding. The correct analysis is exemplified by Complainant's own citation of Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) holding that <redhat.org> was identical to the complainant's RED HAT mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark, albeit that the better expressed principle is that the gTLD can simply be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as ".net" or ".com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; Albertson's, Inc. v. Bennett, FA 117013 (Forum Sept. 5, 2002) ("[T]he absence of a space and the hyphen between the words of the mark are not changes that are capable of overcoming the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) identical analysis."); Morgan Stanley v. nashan, FA 1706094 (Forum Jan. 23, 2017) finding <morgan-stanley.xyz> identical to complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark); Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Forum Nov. 16, 2009) holding that even after the "addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant's mark."); Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). 

 

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Panel accepts that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. Complainant submits that:

 

"Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to connect to a page containing sponsored links to competitive services in the same healthcare industry where Complainant operates, and upon information and belief receives some financial gain from those links when users click on them."

 

The domain name has been registered for 15 years. Nothing is said of the reason it has taken so long to bring these administrative proceedings, but it seems clear that the links at the resolving website are autogenerated to drive click-through fees. The use is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Wahl Clipper Corporation v. rayan cash / gewcorps.com, FA2006001898556 (Forum June 26, 2020) (finding respondent had no rights or legitimate interests where disputed domain name resolved to website that displayed sponsored hyperlinks labeled with complainant mark, terms related to complainant's products and a trademark owned by complainant's competitor); Radio Flyer Inc. v. yang zhi chao, FA2305002043233 (Forum June 5, 2023) ("Using the confusingly similar domain name to capitalize on pay-per-click links is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non- commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"); Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Michael Katka, FA2401002079444 (Forum February 8, 2024) ("Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

4(b)(iv)        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Panel is willing to infer that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its trademark when it created the disputed domain name. The Panel has found the terms to be identical. Confusion is inevitable. The resolving website exists for commercial gain in one form or another, most likely via referral fees. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's webpage, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that webpage.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <questdiagnostics.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: December 10, 2025