DECISION

 

Priority Health v. Jennifer Lawson / Priority health

Claim Number: FA2607002232503

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Priority Health ("Complainant"), represented by Amber M. Underhill of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Jennifer Lawson / Priority health ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <priorityhealthinc.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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 14, 2026; Forum received payment on July 14, 2026.

 

On July 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <priorityhealthinc.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 July 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@priorityhealthinc.com.

 

Also on July 27, 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 August 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that it has established its rights in the PRIORITY HEALTH mark through its ownership of the United States service mark registrations described below and its widespread use of the mark since 1992. Complainant cites Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Khalid Ait El Maati I Balleyltduk, FA 1946028 (Forum June 17, 2021) ("Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration ... [s]uch registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the GOODREADS mark.").

 

Complainant asserts that it is a nationally recognized, providing health coverage and plans to over 1.3 million members under its PRIORITY HEALTH mark, and argues that the PRIORITY HEALTH mark is thus well-known by consumers and is exclusively associated with Complainant.

 

Complainant further submits that it is a subsidiary of Corewell Health, a nationally ranked, highly reputable health care system with over 65,000 employees, over 12,000 affiliated, independent and employed physicians and advanced practice providers, over 15,500 nurses, over 300 ambulatory/outpatient locations, over 20 hospital facilities, and over 5,000 licensed beds.

 

Complainant adds that it is the second largest health plan in Michigan and the third-largest provider-sponsored health plan in the nation, offering a broad portfolio of health benefits options for employer groups and individuals, and has been in business for 40 years. Originally founded as a non-profit corporation in Michigan in 1986 under the name Butterworth Health Plan and Complainant changed its name to Priority Health in 1992.

 

Complainant further notes that it maintains its principal website at <www.priorityhealth.com>, and it is the owner of a portfolio of numerous generic Top Level Domain Names ("gTLDs") incorporating its PRIORITY HEALTH name and mark, including <priorityhealth.com>, <priorityhealth.net>, <priority-health.com>, <priorityhealth.healthcare>, <priorityhealth.services>, <priorityhealth.insure> and <priorityhealth.claims>.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIORITY HEALTH mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, in combination with the element "inc", which is a generic business indicator, together with the gTLD extension <.org>.

 

Complainant argues that it is well established that the addition of a generic term is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a well-known mark. See Wells Fargo Company v. Party Night Inc. and Peter Carrington, FA 144647 (Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that Respondent's <welsfargospecial.com> domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant's WELLS FARGO mark because the addition of the generic word "special" does not create a notable distinction any more the misspelling of one word in the complainant's mark).

 

Furthermore, Complainant contends that it is well established that adding generic terms, such as "inc" in the present proceedings, to a complainant's mark does not differentiate the domain name at issue from the complainant's mark, and in cases where the generic term is strongly related to the Complainant's activities, panels have found the likelihood of confusion even greater. See e.g., Tumblr, Inc. v. Thomas Kimber, WIPO Case D2012-0609 (WIPO May 9, 2012) (finding the domain name <tumblerlinks.com> confusingly similar to the registered service mark TUMBLR despite the addition of the generic term "links").

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that:

·       Respondent is not now, and has never been, commonly known by, nor does it have any other legitimate rights in Complainant's name PRIORITY HEALTH;

·       Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

·       the Whois database identifies the owner of the disputed domain name as Respondent: Jennifer Lawson / Priority health;

·       Complainant never authorized Respondent to use the PRIORITY HEALTH mark or any confusingly similar variation in any domain name, nor is Respondent a subsidiary or affiliate of Complainant or its parent corporation Corewell Health;

·       Respondent is in no way affiliated with, or authorized by, Complainant or its parent Corewell Health;

·       both Complainant and its parent Corewell Health have reviewed their records and have no record of authorizing the registration of the disputed domain name;

·       the disputed domain name appears to have been intentionally chosen to confuse users into believing it is affiliated with Complainant and the PRIORITY HEALTH brand;

·       as shown in the screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name currently redirects to Complaint's official website at <www.priorityhealth.com>, which is a tactic often used to illicitly build credibility for potential phishing attacks, scams, or social engineering campaigns; and

·       finally, if Respondent fails to respond, such failure may be construed as an admission by Respondent that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant submits it follows that since Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service, nor putting it to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, Complainant has established the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in its favor.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert persons searching for Complainant and to impersonate Complainant which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is clearly portraying itself as Complainant or as a subsidiary or affiliate of Complainant, when it is not; and Respondent's use of the identical name PRIORITY HEALTH and redirecting users to Complainant's official website creates the false impression that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant, constituting bad faith. See Laboratoires De Biologie Vegetate Yves Rocher v. Jung Choi, FA 104201 (Forum Mar. 22, 2002).

 

The fact that the disputed domain name <priorityhealthinc.com> currently redirects to Complainant's official website at <www.priorityhealth.com> further demonstrates malicious, bad faith conduct, as scammers frequently use this tactic in attempt to appear legitimate during the course of phishing attacks, scams, or social engineering campaigns.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name and PRIORITY HEALTH mark without authorization is thus indicative of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

 

FINDINGS

Complainant itself is a health plan insurance provider, and it owns and uses the PRIORITY HEALTH mark in its business for which it holds the following service mark registrations:

·       United States registered service mark PRIORITY HEALTH registration number 3,387, 435, registered on the Principal Register on February 26, 2008 for services in international classes 36 and 44;

·       United States registered service mark PRIORITY HEALTH CHOICE registration number 4,598,839, registered on the Principal Register on September 2, 2014 for services in international classes 36 and 44.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence. It maintains its principal website at <www.priorityhealth.com>, and it is the owner of a portfolio of Internet domain names listed below.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on March 12, 2026, and resolves to Complainant's own website at <www.priorityhealth.com>.

 

There is no information about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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

Complainant has provided uncontested evidence that on the balance of probabilities it has rights in the PRIORITY HEALTH service mark, established by its ownership of the service mark registrations described above. Furthermore its reputation has been enhanced by its extensive use of the mark in its business as the second largest health plan in Michigan and the third-largest provider-sponsored health plan in the USA.

 

The disputed domain name <priorityhealthinc.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive element "inc." which is a standard abbreviation of a corporate designation, together with the gTLD extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety the complainant is entitled to succeed in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

 

Complainant's mark dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name and the addition of the descriptive element "inc" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

 

Furthermore, in the circumstances of this proceeding the gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name, and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's service mark.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <priorityhealthinc.com> is confusingly similar to the PRIORITY HEALTH mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In its submissions Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The uncontested evidence is that Complainant is the owner of, and has extensive goodwill in, the PRIORTY HEALTH service mark; and Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's own website.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent puts the disputed domain name to any bona fide or legitimate use. Instead, it is being used to intercept Internet traffic intended for Complainant. Complainant has argued that such use of a domain name may be used to give credibility to email messages being sent from an account created using the disputed domain name. This is an allegation that requires an answer in the circumstances and no answer has been forthcoming.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The record shows that the disputed domain name was registered on March 12, 2026, which is long after Complainant registered and established its reputation and goodwill in the PRIORTY HEALTH mark.

 

The uncontested evidence is that the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to Complainant's name, mark, and domain name, was registered without the license or consent of Complainant, which has a substantial goodwill in the PRIORITY HEALTH mark and the disputed domain name.

 

Not only does PRIORITY HEALTH have an established reputation including its use by Complainant on its website, but the uncontested evidence is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. Respondent chose to use Complainant's name as the registrant: Jennifer Lawson / Priority health. The use of false registration information is in itself a significant factor in determining registration and use in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to take predatory advantage of Complainant's name, mark and goodwill.

 

The uncontested evidence further shows that Respondent has caused, permitted or allowed the disputed to resolve to Complainant's own website at <www.priorityhealth.com>.

 

It is well established that use of a domain name to attract, intercept, and divert Internet traffic in this way constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

While Complainant has not proven that the disputed domain name was caused to resolve to its website to give credibility in the event that it were to be used to send phishing messages, it is difficult to imagine any other reason why Respondent would make such arrangements.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <priorityhealthinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2026