DECISION

 

Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Mu Mu / Repossessed by Go Daddy

Claim Number: FA2607002233012

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer M. Lantz of Duane Morris LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mu Mu / Repossessed by Go Daddy ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net> and <intuitivemedtech.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2026; Forum received payment on July 15, 2026.

 

On July 16, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net> and <intuitivemedtech.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 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@intuitivemedica.com, postmaster@intuitivemed.net, postmaster@intuitivemedtech.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 the Parties' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the entities that control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, operating jointly and possibly under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." UDRP Panels consider a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domains are, in fact, of common ownership. Such factors as date of creation, similar naming conventions, and similar use of the disputed domain names may be considered to determine if the disputed domain names are owned by a single entity.

 

Here Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names all resolve to infringing websites that share similar naming conventions, incorporating Complainant's mark "INTUITIVE" and  the word "med" as an abbreviation for "medical". The domains are also all registered with the same registrant, GoDaddy. Further, the domain names all resolve to websites containing identical layouts, text and similar images behind the text "Unlimited possibilities for developing minimally invasive medical treatments."

 

Additionally, the disputed domain names were all registered within a 20 day period of time. Specifically, <intuitivemedica.com> registered on or about July 2, 2026; <intuitivemed.net> registered on or about June 13, 2026; and <intuitivemedtech.com> registered on or about July 2, 2026. Such time is considered a short time period that weighs in favor of a finding of consolidation and related aliases. See CraneTech, Inc. v. Jackson Jackson / Koded Kreative / Clint Owen / Business/ Denise Prather / cranetechusa, FA 2136493 (Forum Feb. 21, 2025) (treating May 2024 through November 2024 as a short timeframe for registering the domains).

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain name holder or more than one person or entity acting jointly as the same domain name holder. The findings and decisions herein therefore apply to all Respondents.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Intuitive Surgical Operations Inc. ("Intuitive") is the owner of numerous trademark registrations under the INTUITIVE and INTUITIVE SURGICAL marks both in the United States and internationally for a wide variety of goods and services in the surgical and medical space, including robotic-assisted surgical systems, surgical devices and instruments, and various related software and services.

 

Respondent's domain names <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net>, and <intuitivemedtech.com> (collectively, the "disputed domain names") are all related based on similar naming conventions incorporating "intuitive" and "med," an abbreviation for "medical."

 

The domains are all registered with the same registrant, GoDaddy. The disputed domain names also all resolve to websites that contain identical layouts, text and images.

 

Respondent's domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's registered INTUITIVE marks.

 

Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Disputed Domain Names.

 

Respondent is not connected or affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not received a license or authorization, express or implied, to use the INTUITIVE marks in a domain name or in any other manner. 

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor is Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant and execute a financial fraud.

 

It is inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of Complainant and its INTUITIVE Marks. 

 

Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. ("Complainant"), of Sunnyvale, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and global registrations for the mark INTUITIVE and related marks in the surgical and medical fields. Complainant has continuously used the INTUITIVE mark since at least as early as 1997 in conjunction with its production and sales of medical surgical systems and related devices and services.

 

Respondent is Mu Mu/Repossessed by Go Daddy ("Respondent"), of Phnom Penh, Cambodia/Tempe, AZ, USA. Respondent's registrar's address is Tempe, AZ, USA. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on or about <intuitivemedica.com> - July 2, 2026, <intuitivemed.net> - June 13, 2026, and <intuitivemedtech.com> - July 2, 2026.

 

Based on the reasons noted below Complainant has successfully proven all the elements necessary for its requested relief to be granted.

 

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 asserts rights in the INTUITIVE mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (see USPTO Reg. No. 2,381,704 registered August 29, 2000). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has established rights in the INTUITIVE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain names contain Complainant's INTUITIVE mark in full followed by the generic reference "med" and/or slight variations thereof along with the ".com" or ".net" gTLD. Prior panels have held that the addition of a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See, Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 0153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) ("[t]he addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name."). Panels have also found that the addition of generic terms or elements fail to differentiate a disputed domain name from a protected mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel here finds the domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant' INTUITIVE s mark, or any derivatives thereof, nor register domain names using its mark. Nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information or the record indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names. Indeed the WHOIS record does not identify anyone as the registrant purposely hid the same. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.); see also UBS AG v. Key , FA 1705029 (Forum Jan. 10, 2017) (finding respondent not to be commonly known by disputed domain name where WHOIS listed dissimilar name as registrant).

 

Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's INTUITIVE mark in the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. All of the resolving websites include an unauthorized portion of Complainant's main website plus fraudulent information about Renhe Medical Group in an effort to impersonate Complainant and perpetrate a financial fraud. The websites all contain texts and information related to an investment fraud campaign that published a fabricated press release claiming that Intuitive (NASDAQ: ISRG) acquired "Renhe Medical Group" for USD 200 million. No such acquisition has ever occurred.

 

The <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net>, and <intuitivemedtech.com>  domain names currently resolve to websites that deliberately mimic the look and feel of Complainant's official INTUITIVE  website, including using Complainant's registered INTUITIVE marks and copyrighted photographs. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's mark, photographs, and marketing materials support the conclusion that Respondent is not making fair use Complainant's INTUITIVE mark. Instead Respondent is using the disputed domain names to pass off its websites as those of Complainant, deliberately deceiving consumers into believing they are genuinely engaging with Complainant's INTUITIVE information, products, and services. 

 

The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor do the domain names resolve to websites presenting bona fide offerings of goods and services, and Respondent further lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the names per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. At the time of registering the domain names, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the INTUITIVE mark. See Orbitz, LLC v. Rajiv Khatri, Service Network, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1665 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2015)(stating "[t]he Respondent's registrations are in bad faith also because it arguably knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark at the time of registration. A standard trademark search would show the Complainant's mark"), see also Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name").

 

Respondent's registration and use of the <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net> and <intuitivemedtech.com> domain names constitute bad faith under Sections 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(iii), and/or 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because Respondent registered and uses the domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to its fraudulent websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's INTUITIVE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of Respondent's websites. See Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Forum June 24, 2002) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to pay-per-click websites for respondent's financial gain).

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has shown bad faith registration and use by Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant's requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <intuitivemedica.com>, <intuitivemed.net> and <intuitivemedtech.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: August 31, 2026