DECISION

 

Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company v. Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2604002218903

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company ("Complainant"), represented by Jason A. Pittman of Dority & Manning, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <prismahealth.team>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 30, 2026; Forum received payment on April 30, 2026.

 

On April 30, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prismahealth.team> 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 May 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 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@prismahealth.team. Also on May 5, 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 May 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Prisma Health is a non-profit entity that operates the largest private non-profit healthcare system in South Carolina. Complainant employs more than 30,000 team members, including more than 2,344 employed physicians. Complainant's more than 30,000 team members operate and staff twenty (20) acute care and specialty hospitals and approximately 490 physician practice sites/offices. Complainant was formerly known as SC Health Company.

 

In addition to the USPTO trademark registration for PRISMA HEALTH Complainant also uses the domain name registered January 16, 2018.

 

Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH trademark. Complainant's federally registered PRISMA HEALTH trademark is identical to Complainant's trademark. Specifically, the domain name contains Complainant's trademark in its entirety, which creates a confusing similarity between the two. With respect to the at-issue domain name, Respondent has simply used the entirety of Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH trademark and added the top-level domain ("gTLD") ".team". The mere addition of a gTLD is irrelevant with respect to determining confusing similarity between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's mark. Respondent's registration of the domain constitutes typosquatting because it is a minor variation of Complainant's registered mark. Evidence of typosquatting supports a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where the disputed domain name incorporates a registered trademark in its entirety.

 

Why Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the complaint. Respondent is NOT a licensee of Complainant. Respondent is NOT authorized or permitted to use Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH trademark. Nor is Respondent in privity with Complainant on any other basis. Complainant's trademark application (filed many years before Respondent created the at-issue domain name) resulted in Complainant's federal trademark registration of the PRISMA HEALTH mark. Complainant's mark is on the principal register, which constitutes constructive notice to the Respondent of the Complainant's claim and right of ownership of the PRISMA HEALTH mark. Respondent created the at-issue domain name on July 2, 2025, but Complainant's federally registered trademark is afforded a constructive use date and priority of April 4, 2018, the application filing date. Complainant's registered rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark precede Respondent's July 2, 2025, domain creation date by more than seven years. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of or demonstrable preparations to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice to the Respondent of the Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark. Specifically, Respondent simply added ".team" gTLD to Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH mark in order to take unfair advantage of Complainant's mark and prey on, confuse or redirect internet users, including to click-through links related to medical products or services, when Complainant provides medical services. Registering a domain name for purposes of typosquatting does not confer rights or legitimate interests in that domain. The click-through links on the website connected to the at-issue domain name reveals that Respondent has intentionally targeted Complainant's area of operation, medical and healthcare services. These circumstances represent a clear effort by Respondent to convey that the healthcare services or products referenced on the webpage located on the at-issue domain and the associated links that Respondent displayed at the domain name website were associated with Complainant. For these reasons, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the PRISMA HEALTH trademark and demonstrates that its registrant lacks a legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name is further demonstrated with respect to the circumstances related to Complainant's cease-and-desist letter. Complainant issued a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, c/o the Registrar of the domain that Respondent used to conceal its identity, notifying the Respondent of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark and requesting a reply. Complainant pointedly notified Respondent of the potential confusion as it relates to the possibility of PRISMA HEALTH healthcare services. Respondent never provided a meaningful response to the Complainant's letter. Respondent's failure to contest the Complainant's assertion of rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark supports a finding that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain. Respondent's identity is privacy protected. There is no other evidence available to show that the Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the <prismahealth.team> domain name. Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH mark is interfering with Complainant's legitimate business interests. Thus, Respondent's use of the domain name, as alleged, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ¶ 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Why the domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH trademark because the trademark application for the mark was filed with the USPTO by Complainant prior to Respondent's registration of the domain name. Respondent also exhibited bad faith under the Policy because it registered a typosquatted domain name. Specifically, Respondent is a typosquatter because, inter alia, the domain is a nondistinctive typographical variant of the PRISMA HEALTH trademark with the gTLD ".team" appended at the end. Respondent and the website maintained at <prismahealth.team> intentionally targeted Complainant and is flagged for distributing malware, which evidence Respondent's bad faith. The click-through links on the website reveals that Respondent has intentionally targeted Complainant's area of operation, because, inter alia, the Respondent has included click-through links on the at-issue domain name to the websites of competing medical goods, services or companies. Further, Respondent did not provide a meaningful response to Complainant's cease and desist letter notifying the Respondent of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark and requesting a reply. Respondent's failure to contest the Complainant's assertion of rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark supports finding bad faith registration and use. In view of the circumstances, Respondent's registration of an uncommon/undefined word further also supports finding bad faith. The letter string P-R-I-S-M-A does not spell a common word in ordinary usage. The implausibility of selecting said letter string P-R-I-S-M-A-H-E-A-L-T-H in the absence of actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark but, nevertheless, decided to register a nearly identical domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the PRISMA HEALTH trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PRISMA HEALTH trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website -subsequently blocked for malicious advertising by a third-party security service- to display pay-per-click links to services similar to services offered 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.  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 3.1 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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration for PRISMA HEALTH is sufficient to established Complainant's rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

The at-issue domain names contain Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH trademark less its domain name impermissible space, appended with the ".team" top-level domain name. The difference between <prismahealth.team> and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish any domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <prismahealth.team> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PRISMA HEALTH mark. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) ("When a respondent's domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), ".com", then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any of the at-issue domain names. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for <prismahealth.team> reveals that "Domain Administrator" is its registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is otherwise known by the <prismahealth.team> domain name or any relevant variant thereof. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where "the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant's mark in any way.").

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that displays links to third parties. Respondent's use the domain name in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA 1594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) ("The Panel finds Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant's legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <prismahealth.team>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith.

 

First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to host hyperlinks. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name in this manner disrupts Complainant's business, commercially exploits the confusing similarity that Respondent created between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name, and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)"); see also, Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA 1549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Additionally, a third-party security service has flagged the <prismahealth.team> domain name for malicious advertising. Respondent has failed to deny the validity of such claim. Respondent's tacit admission of its illicit involvement with malware is also evidence of Respondent bad faith registration and use of its <prismahealth.team> domain name. See Maplebear Inc. DBA Instacart v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1900943 (Forum July 15, 2021) ("… use of the at-issue domain name, to facilitate the installation of software on internet users' computers … is indicative of an underlying phishing scheme and further points to bad faith registration and use of the … domain name").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRISMA HEALTH mark when it registered <prismahealth.team>. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark and from the unique quality of the mark's PRISMA term. Respondent's registration of the confusingly similar <prismahealth.team> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in PRISMA HEALTH further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <prismahealth.team> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 27, 2026