DECISION

 

Tivity Health, Inc. v. trinty trent

Claim Number: FA2602002204943

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tivity Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kunal Makhey of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is trinty trent ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <trivityhealthmngmnts.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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 February 11, 2026; Forum received payment on February 11, 2026.

 

On February 12, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 February 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@trivityhealthmngmnts.com. Also on February 16, 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 March 10, 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 <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TIVITY HEALTH mark.

 

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

 

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

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant provides health care services and holds a registration for the TIVITY HEALTH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 5,586,942, registered October 16, 2018).

 

Respondent registered the <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name on December 15, 2025, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.

 

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 TIVITY HEALTH 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 <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name uses Complainant's TIVITY HEALTH mark and adds "mngmnts" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's TIVITY HEALTH 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its TIVITY HEALTH mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "trinty trent". 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 Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <trivityhealthmngmnts.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 send fraudulent emails. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in emails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent's attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pose as Complainant's Human Resource Manager in emails and to solicit personal information. 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 has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See also Coinbase v. Anonymize, FA 1958522 (Forum Sept. 7, 2021) (finding no rights or legitimate interests when the disputed domain name resolved to a website that, in part, impersonated Complainant in order to gain sensitive personal information as part of a phishing scam).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and uses the <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> domain name to send fraudulent emails. Registering a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in emails and solicit personal information disrupts Complainant's business for Respondent's gain and evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also CoorsTek, Inc. v. Gwendolyn K Bohn / CoorsTek Inc, FA 1764186 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("Respondent sent email to users seeking employment at Complainant's business and asked for personal information such as a photo ID. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent's emails constitute a phishing scheme and this indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").  Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered <trivityhealthmngmnts.com> with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TIVITY HEALTH mark in an effort to impersonate Complainant in emails. The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.").

 

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

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: March 10, 2026