The Complainant is WebMD LLC of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Whois Privacy Protection of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2017. On September 28, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 30, 2017.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant provides health information services and practice management services. The Complainant owns the United States trademark registration for the mark EMEDICINE, registered on September 8, 1998 with registration number 2187823 which has been used for its online information services since 1998.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 24, 2014. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website at the moment. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered EMEDICINE mark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark right and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the respective trademark or service mark.
The Panel examines the registration certificate submitted by the Complainant and finds that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name on August 24, 2014, the Complainant had registered the mark EMEDICINE (in 1998) in the United States.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name consists of the terms “emedicine” and “health” before the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.org”. The Respondent does not respond to such contention.
The Panel finds that “emedicine” is the beginning and the most distinctive component of the disputed domain name and the addition of the dictionary word “health” does not diminish the overall confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered mark. Therefore, the disputed domain name , as a whole, is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered mark EMEDICINE. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, or commonly known by the disputed domain name, and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . The Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name .
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Since there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name , the Panel finds that the Complaint has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent made no submission to rebut the Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel notes that the Complainant registered and has been using the mark EMEDICINE for online health information services since 1998. Given that the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that it is reasonable to presume that the Respondent not only chose to copy or imitate the Complainant’s mark EMEDICINE in the disputed domain name but also deliberately reinforced the imitation by adding to “emedicine” the term “health”, which is exactly the services the Complainant’s mark EMEDICINE is used on.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name used to resolve to a website containing contents copied from the Complainant’s website “”. The disputed domain name website was later suspended by the Registrar after receiving the Complainant’s abuse notification. Since the Respondent does not respond or rebut the Complainant’s contention, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission.
Given that the Respondent had used the disputed domain name for a website that imitated Complainant’s website, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s holding of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark poses a substantive threat to the Complainant. In the field of online health information services, it is essential for the public to access truthful and accurate information, the Respondent’s registration and previous use of the disputed domain name could endanger the public health and therefore tarnish the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.
Although the disputed domain name is no longer resolves to an active website at the moment, the Respondent is capable of resuming its resolution to the previous website, as long as the disputed domain name is still in the control of the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent’s continuing holding of the disputed domain name should be deemed bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b). In conclusion, the Complainant has successfully proven paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: November 20, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy