DECISION

 

Carelon Management Services, Inc. n/k/a CareMore Health Management Services, LLC v. Alex Hunter

Claim Number: FA2511002190071

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Carelon Management Services, Inc. n/k/a CareMore Health Management Services, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Tricia L. Schulz of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Alex Hunter ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <caremore-healthcare.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 20, 2025; Forum received payment on November 20, 2025.

 

On November 24, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <caremore-healthcare.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 December 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 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@caremore-healthcare.com.

 

Also on December 1, 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 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the CAREMORE mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in the provision of healthcare services.

 

Complainant asserts that it has continuously and exclusively used the CAREMORE mark since at least 1993 in connection with medical and healthcare-related services. including healthcare, pharmacy, educational, administrative, and business management services. Since it was established the business has grown and in 2025 alone, Complainant spent over $2.4 million on marketing and advertising under the CAREMORE marks.

 

It is submitted that from 2020 through 2023, Complainant generated significant revenues, exceeding $4.6 billion with over $1 billion annually, and its CAREMORE mark has become well-known and exclusively associated with Complainant in the healthcare and medical space, creating tremendous goodwill and brand value.

 

Additionally, Complainant submits that it actively uses social media to promote its services under the CAREMORE mark including on Facebook and LinkedIn, as shown in screen captures exhibited with the Complaint.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <caremore-healthcare.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's CAREMORE mark.

 

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name incorporates the identical CAREMORE house mark in its entirety, together with a hyphen ("-"), the highly descriptive, if not generic, term "healthcare," and the generic Top-Level Domain extension <.com>.

 

It is argued that addition of the term "healthcare" increases, rather than lessens, the association with Complainant because the term directly describes Complainant's services and the sector in which Complainant operates. Panels have found that adding descriptive terms related to a complainant's business does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a confusing similarity analysis. See Aetna Inc. v. Kristanto Siswanto, FA 124989 (Forum Oct. 30, 2002) (finding <aetnahealthcare.com> confusingly similar to AETNA because "healthcare" described the complainant's services).

 

Complainant further argues that the addition of the hyphen and descriptive term closely tied to Complainant's field of activity does not obviate confusing similarity. See AbbVie Inc. v. Hol Mat / diede construction, FA 2157044 (Forum June 13, 2025) (where the addition of the term "healthcare" and a hyphen to ABBVIE did not sufficiently distinguish <abbviehealthcare.com>).

 

It is furthermore argued that the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> is irrelevant to the assessment of confusing similarity under the Policy.

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that

·       Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name <caremore-healthcare.com>, nor by any derivation thereof;

·       the WHOIS registration record as revealed by the Registrar states that "Alex Hunter" is the registrant;

·       Complainant has not authorized Respondent or any third party to use or register the CAREMORE mark in any manner, including incorporation into a domain name or use on a website;

·       Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and has never been granted authorization, license, sponsorship, endorsement, or certification to use Complainant's CAREMORE marks or any variation thereof in a domain name or on a website;

·       Complainant is not aware of any person or entity associated with Respondent that is a current or former licensee of Complainant's CAREMORE mark, and Complainant has no knowledge that Respondent is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or any derivation thereof;

·       to the extent Respondent does not reply in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;

·       Respondent's use of the disputed domain name <caremore-healthcare.com> does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);

·       the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, illustrates that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant by prominently displaying Complainant's CAREMORE marks without authorization on the resolving website and by purporting to offer healthcare and medical services identical and/or closely related to Complainant's services;

·       Respondent appears to use the disputed domain name for phishing purposes, arguing that the resolving website displays fabricated contact details, including a fictitious mailing address "123 Health St, City," a phone number "555-0123-4567," fake reviews attributed to "John Doe" and "Jane Smith," and non-functional links, as exhibited in the screen capture in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant concludes arguing that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, to purport to offer directly competing services, and to display Complainant's CAREMORE marks without authorization demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Initially, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CAREMORE mark, as evidenced by Respondent's use of the identical CAREMORE house mark in the disputed domain name and on the resolving website.

 

Complainant notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves prominently displays Complainant's marks without authorization and purports to offer healthcare-related services identical or closely related to Complainant's services. Screenshots of the resolving website are provided as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

It is argued that the totality of circumstances demonstrates actual knowledge, including Complainant's continuous and exclusive use of the CAREMORE marks since at least 1993.

 

Furthermore, Complainant asserts that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name includes indicators of a fraudulent phishing scheme. As documented in the screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the resolving website displays fabricated contact details, including a fictitious mailing address "123 Health St, City," a fake phone number "555-0123-4567," fake reviews attributed to "John Doe" and "Jane Smith," and non-functional links.

 

Complainant argues that conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a healthcare services company and is the owner of the CAREMORE mark for which it holds the following portfolio of service mark registrations:

·       United States registered service mark CAREMORE, registration number 3398557, registered on the Principal Register on March 18, 2008 for services in international classes 35, 36, 41, and 44;

·       United States registered service mark CAREMORE TOUCH, registration number 3585221, registered on the Principal Register on March 10, 2009 for services in international class 36;

·       United States registered service mark CAREMORE VALUE PLUS, registration number 3183574, registered on the Principal Register on December 12, 2006 for services in international class 44.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2025, and resolves to a website that purports to offer competing healthcare-related services. The website prominently displays the CAREMORE mark without authorization, uses the trade name "Caremore Healthcare," and includes fabricated contact details, fake reviews, and non-functional links, suggesting possible phishing activity.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the CAREMORE mark established by its ownership of the abovementioned portfolio of service mark registrations and extensive use of the mark in its business providing healthcare services.

 

Complainant's  goodwill and reputation is reflected in its revenue in the period from 2020 through 2023, when Complainant's revenues exceeded $4.6 billion.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CAREMORE mark in its entirety, together with a hyphen, the term "healthcare," and the gTLD extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that, as in the present case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant's mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name, and neither the hyphen nor the generic and descriptive term "healthcare," prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Furthermore, in the circumstances of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. 

 

In particular, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, to purport to offer directly competing services, and to display Complainant's CAREMORE mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves without authorization demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's CAREMORE mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2025 whereas the earliest service mark registration for the CAREMORE mark, relied upon by Complainant was registered on June 1, 1993.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and the screen capture of its LinkedIn page "CareMore Health" shows that it has 33,991 followers.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant, its CAREMORE mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation in its CAREMORE mark.

 

Complainant has exhibited screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.

 

The website is very basic. It has no images or the type of marketing presentation that would be expected of a healthcare company. It is entirely text based in three colors. It purports to present itself as a "Caremore Healthcare" website. It displays a button inviting visitors to "join". It also purports to offer endorsement of the services offered by a "John Doe".

 

Of great concern is that the Internet visitor is invited to "join", " enter your email address" and "Submit your information now". The uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that the website contains false contact information.

 

On the evidence Respondent is clearly purporting to impersonate Complainant, and on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the website to which the disputed domain name resolves in bad faith to perpetrate a phishing scheme, by collecting personal data from unsuspecting Internet visitors.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <caremore-healthcare.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

___________________________________________

 

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: December 26, 2025