DECISION

 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Owen Mitchell

Claim Number: FA2601002199275

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Catherine E. Maxson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Owen Mitchell ("Respondent"), Great Britain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kaisermemberservices.org>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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 Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Adam Taylor and Michael A. Albert as Panelists and Carol M. Stoner as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 12, 2026; Forum received payment on January 12, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kaisermemberservices.org> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 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@kaisermemberservices.org. Also on January 15, 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 11, 2026,  pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor and Michael A. Albert as Panelists and Carol M. Stoner as Chair.

 

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 <kaisermemberservices.org> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it is a non-profit public benefit corporation which provides health care services to its members through Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ("KFH") and eight independent medical groups (the "Permanente Medical Groups" or "PMGs"). Complainant contends that these separate legal entities, that is, Kaiser, KFH and the PMGs") operate under the tradename and trademark "Kaiser Permanente" and are widely recognized by the name "Kaiser" ("the Kaiser Mark(s)"). The system known as the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program serves over 12 million pre-paid health care plan members.

 

Complainant contends that its Kaiser organization adopted the KAISER trademark for its provision of health care services in 1953 and first applied to register the mark KAISER in 1966 (US Reg. No. 859812).  Complainant further contends that it has registered many domain names that are similar to the disputed domain, and most importantly, <kaisermemberservices.com>, per its Annexes B & C.

 

Complainant states that Respondent registered the disputed domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> on or about June 10, 2025, well after Kaiser established its rights in the Kaiser Marks, per Complainant's Annex A.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's disputed domain of <kaisermemberservices.org> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Kaiser has rights. That is, Kaiser has rights in KAISER Marks, all of which are distinctive and well-recognized.  Kaiser has obtained U.S. trademark registrations for many of the KAISER Marks, many of which are incontestable and therefore, provide conclusive evidence of Kaiser's rights in the marks. Complainant contends that Respondent's domain is confusingly similar to Kaiser's Marks, in that the disputed domain incorporates Kaiser's well-known KAISER Mark in its entirety and pairs it with the generic wording "member services," which incorporation reflects an intentional effort to mislead their consumers, which are called "members." Complainant further contends that Kaiser's KAISER Mark is a famous mark and is strongly associated with the health care services provided through the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no grounds for a legitimate claim in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never licensed nor authorized Respondent to use the KAISER Marks and Respondent has never legitimately used a name or domain containing a KAISER Mark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <kaisermemberservices.org> domain name, nor a KAISER Mark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith, pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) to intentionally attract internet users to their website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the website.  Complainant asserts that this confusion is exacerbated by Respondent's use of KAISER's Marks and Kaiser's Happy Family logo, per Complainant's Annex E.  Complainant further alleges that the purpose of Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name, was to perpetrate fraud, which constitutes bad faith. Complainant lastly alleges, that Respondent may have registered the domain name, primarily for the purpose of transferring it to Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Registrant's costs, which also constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The domain name <kaisermemberservices.org> 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 <kaisermemberservices.org>; and

3.       The domain name <kaisermemberservices.org> has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 has decided 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 has drawn such inferences as they considered 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

A UDRP identical and/or confusingly similar Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis requires that the Complainant first demonstrate that it has rights in the mark. Then, if such rights are evinced, Complainant must show that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.

 

Panel has viewed Complainant's Annex B, which consists of Complainant's numerous trademark registrations in the United States, for marks containing KAISER. For example, Panel has viewed the Mark of KAISER (US Reg. No. 859812) which was registered in 1968, duly renewed as required, and is currently a live mark. This Mark is incontestable through length of registration.

 

This registration of the Mark with the USPTO is sufficient, per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to establish Complainant's rights in the Mark. See DIRECTTV LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 12818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)"). These USPTO conferred rights in the Mark are the threshold element that constitutes "standing" for Complainant to file a UDRP Complaint. Therefore, this Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the KAISER Marks.  

 

Complainant must next establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark rights. "On the question of identity or confusing similarity, what is required is simply a comparison and assessment of the disputed domain name itself to the Complainant's proved trademarks." See Rockwool International A/S v. usrockwool.com/US Rockwool LLC, formerly US Fireproofing LLC, WIPO Case No. D2013-1022.  Here, Panel's side-by-side comparison of Complainant's KAISER Marks with Complainant's domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> illustrates that Complainant's KAISER marks are recognizable within the disputed domain. That is, Respondent's domain of <kaisermemberservices.org> is confusingly similar to KAISER's Marks, in that the disputed domain incorporates Kaiser's well-known KAISER Mark in its entirety and pairs it with the generic wording "member services."  Moreover, the disputed domain of <kaisermemberservices.org> incorporates the dominant feature of the text "KAISER". Therefore, the disputed domain of <kaisermemberservices.org> is confusingly similar to KAISER's Marks, per UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). "It is a well-established principle that descriptive or generic additions to a trademark, and particularly those that designate the goods or services with which the mark is used, do not avoid confusing similarity of domain names and trademarks." See EBayInc. v. ebayMoving/Izik Apo, WIPO Case No. D2006-1307.

 

Panel therefore rules, that Respondent's domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> is identical and/or confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant's well-established and registered KAISER Marks. Therefore, UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

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 that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 7680200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (""finding that a Complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case to so satisfy UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(ii)").

 

Complainant has credibly asserted in its Amended Complaint that it has neither authorized, nor licensed Respondent to use the KAISER Marks, nor any variations, thereof. Complainant's Annex E shows that Respondent's domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> resolves to an active website which purports to advertise and to promote Complainant's medical services. Panel has compared Respondent's website, Annex E, to Complainant's website, Annex F, and noted the extreme similarities. Complainant has thus made a credible showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain. Subsequently, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. Here, because Respondent has not filed a Response to Amended Complaint, Respondent has not met its shifted burden to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org>.

Further, Respondent does not use <kaisermemberservices.org> for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. To the contrary, Respondent has assimilated a near identical website to Complainant's website, which is logically designed to divert Complainant's legitimate internet traffic to Respondent's commercial website. Here, Respondent's twinned website displays Kaiser's KAISER PERMANENTE'S mark and Happy Family Logo, and includes a detailed guide to logon to Kaiser's portal and to create an account on <kp.org>, per Complainant's Annex E. Respondent's website references Kaiser multiple times, which would logically tend to confuse consumers, by suggesting that Respondent's website is associated with, affiliated with, or authorized by Kaiser. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) ("finding that the Respondent's use of the Complainant's LIFESTYLE Lounge mark to redirect internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ (4)(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)iii").

 

The totality of Complainant's evidence constitutes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name of <kaisermemberserices.org>. However, Respondent has not shouldered its shifted burden to show that Respondent does indeed, have rights or legitimate interests, so as to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Therefore, Panel rules that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> in accordance with UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Panel has ascertained that Complainant has offered credible evidence that Respondent has registered and has used Complainant's KAISER Marks in bad faith, per UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

In accordance with Complainant's Annex A, constituting ICANN Lookup, Respondent registered the domain name <kaisermemberservices.org> on June 10, 2025. This was 57 years after Complainant registered its first KAISER mark in 1968. That is, Kaiser has rights in multiple KAISER Marks, all of which are distinctive and well-recognized. The fame of Kaiser's Marks naturally emanates from the system known as the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, which serves over 12 million pre-paid health care plan members. Panel has determined that because the uniqueness of the dominant portion of Respondent's mark, that is "KAISER," was chosen for a domain name for a (supposed) related product and service, some 57 years subsequent to Complainant's registration of same, it is "wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently," and therefore, the domain name has been registered in bad faith. See Leidos, Inc. v. Matt Johnson/Midlab FA 2050010 (Forum July 17, 2023). Moreover, as Respondent has not filed a Response to Complainant's Amended Complaint, Panel is entitled to these abovementioned credible inferences of Respondent's bad faith registration of domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org>.

 

Respondent has also used the disputed domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> in bad faith, as it has used the disputed domain name to misrepresent itself as Complainant and to provide misleading information to consumers. Panel particularly notes the near identity of Respondent's website, Annex E, compared to Complainant's website, Annex F.  Here, Panel notes that Respondent's website (Annex E) nonchalantly uses Kaiser's Marks and Kaiser's Happy Family Logo to pass itself off as a site to safely log-on to the official Kaiser Permanente website. See President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Michael S. George / Harvard Business Council, FA 2003542 (Forum Aug. 25, 2022) ("Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant and take advantage of confusion with Complainant's well-known mark to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known mark can be evidence of a bad faith attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Panel lastly notes that Respondent brashly states in its website that "You'll get my verified login URL that's Kaiser Permanente, that saved 10,000+ users from fake phishing scams. Log in to your account to schedule appointments and to access your health records." Here, it is obvious to Panel that Respondent is using this website to deceive internet users to obtain personal and financial information from Complainant's internet customers, in a practice known as "phishing." See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) ("Respondent … is using the domain name in connection with an Internet "phishing" scam, a practice that is intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and proprietary information.").

 

Panel therefore rules, that UDRP Policy ¶ (4)(a)(iii) has been satisfied because Respondent has both registered and is using the domain name of <kaisermemberservices.org> in bad faith.

         

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 <kaisermemberservices.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Carol M. Stoner, Chair

Adam Taylor, Panelist

Michael A. Albert, Panelist