DECISION

 

Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Sonia Bary / Meridian Health

Claim Number: FA2512002192003

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah E. Bro of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sonia Bary / Meridian Health ("Respondent"), Portugal.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <meridionhealth.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 1, 2025; Forum received payment on December 1, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <meridionhealth.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 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 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@meridionhealth.com. Also on December 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 December 30, 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, Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc., is an integrated network of healthcare providers in the New Jersey area. Complainant has rights in the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,188,836, registered on September 15, 1998). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MERIDIAN HEALTH mark since the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant's MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark, in that the letter 'a' in the word "MERIDIAN" of the "MERIDIAN HEALTH" trademark has been replaced with the letter 'o.'

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant licensed or permitted Respondent to use the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to a page parked by the Registrar.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is engaging in the passive holding of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on November 10, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,188,836, registered on September 15, 1998).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage parked by the Registrar.

 

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 MERIDIAN HEALTH mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,188,836, registered Sep. 15, 1998). Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes valid evidence of rights in a mark. Given that Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <meridionhealth.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MERIDIAN HEALTH mark since the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant's MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark, specifically, the letter 'a' in the word "MERIDIAN" of the "MERIDIAN HEALTH" trademark has been replaced with the letter 'o.' The Panel finds that the replacement of a single letter and the addition of a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2005830 (Forum Aug. 31, 2022) (finding <chevcon.com> similar to the CHEVRON mark because the registration of a domain name that substitutes one letter for another in a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's MERIDIAN HEALTH mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a Response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Sonia Bary / Meridian Health." However, there is no affirmative evidence indicating that Respondent is actually commonly known by the name "Meridian Health," as opposed to merely registering the disputed domain name using false information to assert rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. See Midjourney, Inc. v. Midjourney Group / The Midjourney AI, FA 2103820 (Forum July 29, 2024) ("the evidence available to the Panel suggests that Respondent, in an effort to wrap itself in an air of legitimacy to give cover to its registration of the domain name, adopted a pair of rough equivalents of Complainant's corporate name, …, and respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name"). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to a webpage parked by the Registrar. The use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a parked page does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Respondent is liable for the contents of the website associated with the disputed domain name. The use of a disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to another's trademark, to resolve to a parked page does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the considerations above. Collectively, these factors establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent's failure to make active use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. As previously noted, Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a Registrar's default landing page.

 

The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use).

 

The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following:

 

i) The Panel notes that in 2024, U.S. News & World Report once again named HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER as the #1 hospital in New Jersey according to its annual Best Hospitals list, making Complainant the only New Jersey hospital with the #1 adult and children's hospital rankings. Also in 2024, Complainant became the first hospital in the world to treat patients suffering from enlarged prostate with an artificial intelligence-powered robot that removes excess prostate tissue. In addition to being ranked the top hospital in New Jersey, HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER is ranked #6 overall in the New York Metropolitan area. The hospital is also home to the John Theurer Cancer Center, a premier cancer center in New Jersey. HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER has the best, nationally ranked programs in New Jersey in Cardiology, Heart & Vascular Surgery (#42), Pulmonology and Lung Surgery (#24), and Geriatrics (#36). It is also the only New Jersey hospital nationally ranked in Neurology and Neurosurgery (#22) and Urology (#27). The hospital is also nationally ranked in Orthopedics (#33). As a result of such widespread, continuous, and prominent use, Complainant's marks have acquired significant goodwill and public recognition, as a means by which the public identifies Complainant's goods and services prior to the registration of the disputed domain name; and

 

ii) Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name.

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Furthermore, Complainant asserts that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. To support this claim, Complainant points to (i) the widespread recognition associated with Complainant's marks and (ii) Respondent's use of a typosquatted version of Complainant's marks. Although panels have generally not regarded constructive notice alone as sufficient to establish bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration of a disputed domain name is adequate to support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Given the reputation of Complainant's mark, the Panel infers that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MERIDIAN HEALTH mark at the time of registration, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <meridionhealth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: January 1, 2026