DECISION

 

North Broward Hospital District dba Broward Health v. [Redacted]

Claim Number: FA2607002236584

 

PARTIES

Complainant is North Broward Hospital District dba Broward Health ("Complainant"), represented by A. Robert Weaver of The Brickell IP Group, PLLC, Florida, USA. Respondent is [Redacted].

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <browardhealthfoundations.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2026; Forum received payment on July 31, 2026.

 

On August 4, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <browardhealthfoundations.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of August 31, 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@browardhealthfoundations.org. Also on August 11, 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 September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:  Identity Theft

Complainant notes that the person who registered the domain name gave false WHOIS information to the registrar. The registrant address given to the registrar is the actual office address of the security officer for the registrant corporation as named to the registrar but neither that corporation nor any person acting on its behalf was involved in registering the domain name or sending the impersonating email more fully discussed below. The person who registered the domain name has engaged in identity theft, falsely naming as registrants persons who had no part in registering the domain name or in the fraudulent use of it.

 

Policy ¶ 4(j) provides that a panel may redact portions of a publlished decision in an exceptional case. UDRP panels have consistenly found that cases involving fraudulent conduct qualify as exceptional for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(j) and have redacted the names of innocent victims of identity theft from published decisions. Levine, The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet, Legal Corner Press 2024, pp. 248-49, The Royal Bank of Scotland v. [Redacted]. FA 1282153 (Forum Oct. 28, 2009) (redacting the Respondent's name from the Decision on account of the domain name resolving to a website that promotes a fraudulent financial scheme).  Forum's Supplemental Rule 15(b) states that requests for redaction must be made in a complaint, a response or an additional submission. Neither party in this case has requested redaction of the names of persons named as Respondents, but Panels have exercised discretion to redact an innocent party's personal name even in the absence of a request. OSilas Foundation v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 2009845 (Forum Oct. 1, 2022) ("But in those cases where there is no request, such as the present case, the Panel has discretion although, as has just been noted, the discretion must be exercised judiciously.").  In this case the Complainant has expressly raised and provided evidence of the fraudulent registation, and redaction of the registrant names given to the registrar appears appropriate in order to eliminate any possiblity of those persons being falsely associated with the bad faith exhibited by the person who registered the domain name. The names of the named Respondents are hereby redacted from this Decision. All futher references to the Respondent in this Decision are to the person who actually registered the domain name. When Forum transmits this Decision to the registrar it may provide to the registrar the names of the persons orginially named as Respondents if necessary to ensure that any Orders entered herein are properly and timely executed.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has rights in the BROWARD HEALTH mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <browardhealthfoundations.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BROWARD HEALTH trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the word "foundation," albeit misspelled by adding an "s," and the ".org" generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is neither affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, it had actual knowledge of Complainant when registering the domain name, and it is using the domain name to pass of as Complainant and engage in phishing.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It does not have a functioning website at the domain name but is using it to engage in phishing.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The BROWARD HEALTH mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 6,625,449) on January 25, 2022 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit B). Complainant's ownership of this registration establishes its rights in the BROWARD HEALTH mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent's <browardhealthfoundations.org> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the BROWARD HEALTH mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely omitting the space and adding the generic term "foundations" and a gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. Omitting a space and adding a generic term and a gTLD do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the BROWARD HEALTH mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with competent, relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.  At all times, however, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. John Hawkins, Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum Case No. DAI2026-0035

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      The respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)                      the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it is neither affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, (ii) it had actual knowledge of Complainant when registering the domain name, and (iii) it is using the domain name to pass of as Complainant an engage in phishing.  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with it and that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. While evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark is not dispositive, it is relevant to the circumstances listed in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) and (iv) and supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Complaint Exhibit D consists of an email from a person identifying herself as Rosa Simmons, acting as "Purchasing Manager" for Broward Health Foundation, from bhf.purchasing@browardhealthfoundations.org, engaging with a medical equipment vendor about the purchase of a certain medical device. According to the information about Complainant and Broward Health Foundation contained in websites for those organizations, screenshots of which are included in Complaint Exhibit C, the Broward Health Foundation is a nonprofit philanthropic organization that supports Broward Health, which is a health care system furnishing hospital and community care services throughout southern Florida. It is clear that Respondent was impersonating Complainant's philanthropic arm for fraudulent purposes, preparing to order equipment which would likely be shipped to Respondent, with the invoices going to Complainant or the Foundation. Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate a complainant or a closely-affiliated entity with fraudulent emails is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).  Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant's CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant's ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy  ¶ 4(c)(iii)"), Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Complainant alleges that the email evidences phishing, which is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. While clearly impersonating Complainant's affiliated Foundation, the email requests only the terms and schedule on which the vendor could supply the relevant medical device. It does not request information about the status of pending invoices, banking processes, or any other sensitive, confidential financial information normally associated with phishing. Phishing is not proven. 

 

Complainant did not address the Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) element, concerning whether the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, but the WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit A and the information provided to Forum by the registrar list the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.  Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Complainant's allegation that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BROWARD HEALTH mark is more relevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) element of the case and is addressed below.

 

On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)         by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name.  Constructive notice does not suffice.

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.

 

The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name in April 2026 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit A shows registration date). Complainant had by then been using the BROWARD HEALTH mark at least since the 2022 registration date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for the mark included in Complaint Exhibit B. More tellingly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate its closely-affiliated Broward Health Foundation in its email. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the domain name and selected it with the intent to target this Complainant. It registered the domain name in bad faith.

 

As discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name for an email account from which it sends fraudulent emails that pass off as and impersonate Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant in fraudulent emails, in and of itself, is also evidence of bad faith. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Sam Kadosh, FA 1751762 (Forum Nov. 2, 2017) ("Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant and send fraudulent emails demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."), Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Hyatt, FA 1818756 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) ("using a domain name to pose as a complainant to promote a fraudulent scheme has often been held to constitute bad faith").

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.  

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <browardhealthfoundations.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

September 2, 2026

2