DECISION

 

The Methodist Hospital v. Gloria Annabel

Claim Number: FA2608002237342

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Methodist Hospital ("Complainant"), represented by John C. Cain of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Gloria Annabel ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <houstonmethodlst.org>, 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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 4, 2026; Forum received payment on August 4, 2026.

 

On August 5, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <houstonmethodlst.org> 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 August 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@houstonmethodlst.org. Also on August 7, 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 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOUSTON METHODIST mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a hospital and holds a registration for the HOUSTON METHODIST mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 4,575,350, registered July 29, 2014).

 

Respondent registered the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name on November 20, 2025, and it does not resolve to an active website.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the HOUSTON METHODIST mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant's HOUSTON METHODIST mark and simply adds a top-level domain. This change does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."); see also Victoria's Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters does not create a distinct mark and is instead confusingly similar to the complainant's marks).  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOUSTON METHODIST mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its HOUSTON METHODIST mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Gloria Annabel". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent makes no active use of the domain name. Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name resolves to an error message, which does not establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's failure to make an active use of the <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Granite Gear, LLC v. Will Cameron, FA 2073431 (Forum Jan. 11, 2024) ("The Panel concludes that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Since the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, such use indicates bad faith registration and use. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.").

 

Complainant also points out that Respondent engages in typosquatting, purposely misspelling a mark in a domain name, which constitutes bad faith. See First Republic Bank v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1887104 (Forum Apr. 12, 2020) ("Respondent is also engaging in typosquatting. Respondent formed the at-issue domain name, inter alia, by striking the letter "t" from Complainant's mark. . . . Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").  The Panel thus finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <houstonmethodlst.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: August 29, 2026