DECISION
OFFOR Health, Inc. v. Neville Coward
Claim Number: FA2606002228233
PARTIES
Complainant is OFFOR Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jennette W. Psihoules of Nixon Peabody LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Neville Coward ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <smilemd.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 19, 2026; Forum received payment on June 19, 2026.
On June 22, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <smilemd.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@smilemd.com. Also on June 30, 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 July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 formal response from Respondent.
On August 3, 2026, the Panel issued a Panel Order ("the Panel Order") inviting Additional Submissions. Complainant duly filed an Additional Submission on August 7, 2026.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as evidenced by Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name and requirement of a high sale price despite Complainant's rights in the SMILEMD mark. Respondent's lack of response to the sale communications by Complainant's brokers constitutes bad faith given that Complainant's offer of USD 20,000 is significantly higher than the registration cost of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent's non-use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith passive holding.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
However, Forum received an email from Respondent containing a generic "COURTROOM SIMULATION SCRIPT" which includes an interaction between an "Individual" and a "Judge". In the script, the Individual asserts specific alleged rights under the Constitution of the United States in a criminal law context.
C. Additional Submissions
The following is a summary of Complainant's Additional Submissions dated August 7, 2026, in response to the Panel Order:
- none of the versions of the website at the disputed domain name viewed by Complainant at the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) appear to mention Respondent, nor indicate who is running the website;
- there has been little website use of the disputed domain name, and no active or legitimate use at all since 2019, indicating that the disputed domain name has been passively held in recent years;
- Complainant has located minimal online references to the disputed domain name, and there is no mention on the Facebook Page or on Respondent's LinkedIn page;
- Complainant has established rights in the SMILEMD mark dating back to as early as 2018;
- accordingly, Respondent has provided no evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name;
- previous UDRP cases have held that passive holding of a domain name for over six years creates a nearly irrebuttable presumption against a respondent;
- Respondent has provided virtually no evidence of legitimate use of the disputed domain name for nearly seven years, and has therefore lost any legitimate interests that it may have earlier held in the disputed domain name; and
- because the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SMILEMD mark, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and it has "maintained", and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.smilemdsedation.com.
A Facebook page at www.facebook.com/SmileMD.INC ("the Facebook Page") lists Respondent as Chairman and CEO of "SmileMD Inc" from "January 2000 – present".
The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2004.
On June 2, 2004, a corporation called Smilemd, Inc., was incorporated in Wyoming, with Respondent's name included in the first line of its principal address.
An archive WHOIS screenshot identifies Respondent as the registrant of the disputed domain name on May 27, 2008.
As of December 24, 2009, the corporate status of Smilemd, Inc., was listed as "Inactive – Administratively Dissolved…".
As of January 9, 2019, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was branded "SmileMD", and offered a "doctor search".
As of June 1, 2026, the disputed domain name redirected to an inactive website at www.dentalvisits.com.
In July and August 2024, Complainant engaged various brokers to try and buy the disputed domain name from Respondent, culminating in an offer of USD 20,000, but Respondent did not respond to any of the broker communications.
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 formal 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
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is unnecessary for the Panel to consider this element in light of the Panel's conclusion under the third element below.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Having noted that Respondent's informal Response was signed by Respondent as "Chairman & CEO, SmileMD Inc", the Panel carried out limited factual research into that company. UDRP panels may undertake such research if they consider such information useful in assessing the merits of the case and reaching a decision. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.8.
Thereafter, the Panel issued the Panel Order inviting the parties to comment on evidence indicating that Respondent was identified as having been Chairman and CEO of "SmileMD Inc" since 2000, and was named as the registrant of the disputed domain name as of May 27, 2008. While Complainant made further submissions in response to the Panel Order (see below), Complainant has not disputed that Respondent was the original registrant of the disputed domain name in 2004.
As Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name long predates Complainant's first claimed rights in the SMILEMD mark (and date of first use) in 2018, Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use. See Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum Jun. 19, 2017) ("Whatever the merits of Complainant's arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail."). See also WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.8.1.
Accordingly, even if true, the following are all irrelevant:
- that Respondent has made minimal active use of the disputed domain name for a website, and none at all since 2019;
- that Complainant could not find any mention of Respondent in archive versions of the website at the disputed domain name, nor any references to the disputed domain name on Respondent's Facebook or LinkedIn page;
- that Respondent's company became inactive in 2009;
- that the dates during which Respondent is shown as Chairman and CEO of Smilemd, Inc., extend before and after the apparent period of that company's existence;
- that Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant's attempts to purchase the disputed domain name (which Complainant incorrectly characterizes as Respondent "requiring a high sale price"); and
- that the informal Response filed by Respondent is difficult to comprehend and does not appear to address the matters in issue in this proceeding.
Notwithstanding all of the above, Respondent could not have entertained bad faith intentions regarding Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was registered because it could not have contemplated Complainant's then non-existent rights in that mark at the time.
The Panel considers that Complainant's reliance on the doctrine of passive holding in bad faith is misplaced as this concept does not dispense with the requirement for registration in bad faith and, in any case, there is evidence of former active use of the disputed domain name. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Similarly, Complainant is not assisted by various previous UDRP decisions indicating that "delay" in using a disputed domain name can create a "nearly irrebuttable presumption against a respondent". Such cases are inapplicable in the present circumstances where Respondent registered the disputed domain name long before Complainant's rights arose and plainly did so in connection with the activities of a legitimate company of the same name.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <smilemd.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page