DECISION

 

DaVita Inc. v. Ian Herculson / 1913041 Alberta Inc

Claim Number: FA2601002200143

 

PARTIES

Complainant is DaVita Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Miriam D. Trudell of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ian Herculson / 1913041 Alberta Inc ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <davitahealthcarepartners.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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 January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.

 

On January 18, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <davitahealthcarepartners.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@davitahealthcarepartners.com. Also on January 20, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 10, 2026, 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 a formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in DAVITA which it uses in connection with the provision of healthcare services. Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name; has not been authorized to use the trademark; and has used the domain name to create a deceptive website.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant and its business.

 

In particular, Complainant states that it has a network of over 2,600 outpatient centres in the United States and over 360 outpatient centres in other countries. On May 22, 2012, and in connection with that business, Complainant registered the disputed domain name following public announcement of a merger agreement between it and HealthCare Partners, Inc., the merged company to be named, DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc.  Between 2012 and 2019, Complainant operated under that name but in 2016, Complainant changed its corporate name back to DaVita Inc. and redirected the <davitahealthcarepartners.com> domain name to <davita.com>.  In 2020, Complainant decided not to renew the <davitahealthcarepartners.com> domain name.  In 2022 Respondent obtained ownership of the disputed domain name and began using the domain name without Complainant's knowledge.  Respondent continues to use the disputed domain name to point to a website which causes visitors to believe the website is (1) Complainant's website; (2) the website of an affiliated partner of Complainant; or (3) directed to employees of Complainant. As from January 2026, the website advertises 24/7 emergency dental services, with the trademark DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS appearing at the top of the website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding but on January 20, 2026, wrote to Forum, stating, "I am the Respondent in this matter. I hereby consent to transfer the domain name
davitahealthcarepartners.com to the Complainant".

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

The question is whether the Panel should, in conformity with the Complaint and consistently with the Response, directly transfer the domain name to Complainant. The Panel has a discretion to do so but, given the facts of the case, finds that it is more appropriate to apply the Policy since UDRP decisions have long recognised so-called "consent to transfer" is one way in which respondents have tried to avoid the impact of the Policy and a published decision.

 

As discussed hereunder, Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and the reasonable inference is that the domain name was registered or obtained in bad faith. The Panel proceeds to apply the Policy.

 

FINDINGS

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

1.       Complainant provides healthcare services under the trademark, DAVITA;

2.       Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 5401059, for the trademark, DaVita (stylized), registered February 13, 2018;

3.       the disputed domain name was originally registered by Complainant on May 22, 2012; and

4.       the use of the domain name since 2022 is as described above by Complainant.

 

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 provides evidence of its registration of DAVITA with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights.  Although the registered mark is stylized, the words are clear and obvious and the Panel treats it as a word mark registration for the purposes of the Policy.

 

The Panel finds the domain name confusing similar to the trademark. Addition of the generic/descriptive expression, "healthcare partners", and the gTLD is insufficient to create a point of distinction from the trademark (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

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 genuinely known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any legitimate claim to the same trademark. The opportunistic use of the domain name 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, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither 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 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 has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. An online location associated with the domain name exists for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location and the products promoted there (see, for example, F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (Forum Jul. 9, 2015) ("Respondent uses the website . . . to fool Internet visitors into believing the website is sponsored by Complainant when it is not. … There is little doubt that Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner so as to pass itself off as Complainant is motivated by the prospect of financial gain. Such use of the domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith use and registration of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")).

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 <davitahealthcarepartners.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2026