DECISION

 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Godwin Nwaobasi

Claim Number: FA2604002214830

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Catherine E. Maxson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Godwin Nwaobasi ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kaisermyhr.org> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David H. Bernstein and Luca Barbero as Panelists and Douglas M. Isenberg as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2026; Forum received payment on April 8, 2026.

 

On April 9, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kaisermyhr.org> 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 April 9, 2026, Forum sent a deficiency letter to Complainant regarding the identity of Respondent and its contact information. In response thereto, Respondent submitted an amended complainant (hereafter, the "Complaint") on April 10, 2026.

 

On April 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 30, 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@kaisermyhr.org. Also on April 10, 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 May 8, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed David H. Bernstein and Luca Barbero as Panelists and Douglas M. Isenberg 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 be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Correspondence between the parties indicates that Complainant and Respondent discussed a consent to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant but that Respondent never signed the Notice of Settlement sent by Forum. It is clear that both parties agreed with the settlement, but Respondent said, "I can't edit documents here." The consent was unambiguous, as Respondent wrote to Complainant's counsel: "I consent to the domain transfer of Kaisermyhr. org, go ahead!" And Complainant's counsel wrote to Forum: "Is [the respondent's] email sufficient to constitute an authorization to sign the necessary documents (attached)? Can Namecheap proceed with the transfer?" And: "If I have [the respondent's] consent, may I sign on his behalf?"

 

As set forth in section 4.10 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"):

 

Where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the "standard settlement process"…, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis).

 

Accordingly, because Respondent has given its consent on the record to the transfer remedy sought by Complainant, and because Complainant has made clear that it would accept a transfer without a substantive decision, the Panel will order transfer solely on the basis of such consent, without addressing the merits of any elements set forth in the Policy.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is "a non-profit public benefit corporation which provides health care services to its members through Kaiser Foundation Hospitals… (a non-profit public benefit corporation) and eight independent medical groups"; and that "[t]he system known as the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program comprises one of the largest health care providers in the United States, serving over 12 million pre-paid health care plan members in Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, and the District of Columbia."

 

Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it "owns many registered and unregistered marks consisting of or containing KAISER," including U.S. Reg. No. 859,812 for KAISER (registered November 5, 1968) for use in connection with "hospital services" and "prescription pharmacy services"; and U.S. Reg. No. 1,787,039 for KAISER PERMANENTE (registered August 10, 1993) for use in connection with "arranging for and financing of prepaid health care services" and "health care services." These registrations are referred to herein as the "KAISER Trademark."

 

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 2, 2024, and, according to the Complaint and documentation provided in support thereof, "resolves to Respondent's website which displays the KAISER PERMANENTE, KP, and KAISER marks, and provides instructions on how to access Kaiser's legitimate KP HR CONNECT website." Complainant states, "On the website associated with the Domain, Respondent purports to offer users instructions on how to log in and navigate Kaiser's own KP HR CONNECT website with the following language: 'Welcome to understanding the newly developed Kaiser My HRconnect Portal for all employees…You can get full access to your account on the hrconnect website and get the offers and benefits for it's [sic] employees, aiming to create a supportive and rewarding work environment…You will be educated on everything to know and go about logging in your account step by step. You have come to the right place to learn more about your employee benefits and discounts, login, access your paystub and more opportunities being a worker for Kaiser Permanente.'"

 

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the KAISER Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name "incorporates [Complainant's] distinctive and well-known KAISER mark in its entirety" and "[t]he addition of the term 'HR,' a common and descriptive acronym for 'human resources,' does not distinguish the Domain from Kaiser's KAISER mark, but instead increases the likelihood of confusion by suggesting a connection to Kaiser's internal employee systems."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, Complainant "has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the [KAISER Trademark]; Respondent has never legitimately used a name or domain name containing a [KAISER Trademark] in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain or a [KAISER Trademark]."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because, inter alia, Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes "a deliberate effort to target [Complainant's] internal platforms and create the false impression that the Domain is an official [Complainant] human resources or member services portal"; "the website associated with the Domain prominently displays [Complainant's] trademarks," which "confirms that Respondent is intentionally using the Domain to attract Internet users—including [Complainant's] employees and members—for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website"; and Respondent has "perpetrate[d] fraud by fraudulently passing itself off as [Complainant]."

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  Rather, as noted above, Respondent indicated that he consented to transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth above, regarding the parties' consent to transfer, the Panel declines to make a finding on any elements of the Policy.

 

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.

 

However, because Respondent has given its consent on the record to the transfer remedy sought by Complainant, and because Complainant has made clear that it would accept a transfer without a decision on the merits, the Panel refrains from addressing the elements set forth above.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, regarding the parties' consent to transfer, the Panel declines to make a finding on the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, regarding the parties' consent to transfer, the Panel declines to make a finding on the second element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, regarding the parties' consent to transfer, the Panel declines to make a finding on the third element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

For the reasons set forth above, it is Ordered that the <kaisermyhr.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Douglas M. Isenberg, Chair

Dated: May 19, 2026