DECISION

 

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia

Claim Number: FA2601002198545

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia ("Respondent"), Seychelles.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <anyhem.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2026; Forum received payment on January 7, 2026.

 

On January 12, 2026, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <anyhem.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems 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 January 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2026 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@anyhem.com. Also on January 12, 2026, 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 February 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <anyhem.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANTHEM mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <anyhem.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <anyhem.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., holds a registration for the ANTHEM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 2,751,535, registered August 19, 2003).

 

Respondent registered the <anyhem.com> domain name on February 19, 2008, and uses it for pay-per-click links.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ANTHEM mark based on registration with the USPTO.  See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <anyhem.com> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant's ANTHEM mark and simply adds the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria's Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters does not create a distinct mark and is instead confusingly similar to the complainant's marks). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <anyhem.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's ANTHEM mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <anyhem.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's ANTHEM mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. RD BANK /-, FA 1554468 (Forum May 13, 2014) ("WHOIS information for the <rdbank.com> domain name lists 'RD BANK /-' as the domain name's registrant. However, there is nothing in the record that corroborates the WHOIS data's suggestion that Respondent may be commonly known by the <rdbank.com> domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <anyhem.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to pay-per-click links. Using a disputed domain name for pay-per-click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Complainant provides screenshots from <anyhem.com> showing links such as "Anthem Blue Cross Health Insurance". The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent lacks rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <anyhem.com> domain name in bad faith to divert users to pay-per-click links, some of which appear to compete with Complainant's business. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See CFA Properties, Inc. v. El Mariache/ Mariache Corp, FA 1660175 (Forum Mar. 8, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use because "Respondent used the <chickfilafoundation.org> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain because the resolving website contains links to third party businesses, from which Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees").

 

Complainant points out that typosquatting itself constitutes bad faith.  The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding bad faith where the domain names consisted of the complainant's mark with small typographical errors.)

 

Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent has been the subject of numerous prior adverse UDRP rulings, demonstrating a pattern of bad faith. The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See, e.g., Mav Media, LLC v. Karle Schnurch, EdenMedia, WIPO Case No. D2022-3883; see also Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well.")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <anyhem.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2026