DECISION

 

Amble Health, Inc. v. Albert Smith

Claim Number: FA2607002234839

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amble Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Katlyn M. Moseley of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Albert Smith ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <joinamble.co>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 24, 2026; Forum received payment on July 24, 2026.

 

On July 27, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <joinamble.co> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 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@joinamble.co. Also on July 29, 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 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a U.S.-based virtual healthcare platform offering patients seamless access to licensed physicians and prescription treatment therapies across all 50 states. Complainant provides under its AMBLE marks a variety of healthcare goods and services, including, inter alia, telemedicine services, mail order pharmacy services, and weight loss program services. Complainant's rights in its AMBLE mark date back to at least as early as November 2023, when Complainant first began using the AMBLE marks in commerce. Through its innovative digital delivery model, Complainant provides personalized, evidence-informed care completely online with no insurance required. Complainant broadens access to modern therapies by connecting patients to medical providers who can recommend treatment plans including prescription medications such as GLP‑1 therapy for weight management or compounded nutritional and wellness protocols like NAD⁺, Glutathione, or Lipo injections. Complainant also launched the Amble Cares Program, a national initiative designed to expand affordable access to weight loss treatments for low-income patients. Complainant offers its goods and services through its website located at <joinamble.com>, where consumers can access information regarding Complainant's services and engage with Complainant's online healthcare platform. Complainant owns the <joinamble.com> domain name and has used the domain name to advertise, promote, and provide its goods and services under the AMBLE mark since at least as early as November 2023. Complainant asserts rights in the mark AMBLE through its registration in the United States on July 10, 2026, filing date September 30, 2025.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its AMBLE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "join" together with the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is redirected to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is redirected to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademark rights for the mark AMBLE and uses it to provide, online, a variety of healthcare goods and services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of 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 relevant date for Complainant's AMBLE mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant's rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO "date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent's registration").

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's AMBLE mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "join" and the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD"). The addition of generic/descriptive terms, a hyphen, and a ccTLD fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy."). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Albert Smith". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Trulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA 1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors did "not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use"); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is redirected to a web site that offers products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) ("[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

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 <joinamble.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2026