The Complainant is Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Snell & Wilmer, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246499829, Canada / Zae Miller, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 19, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 29, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 29, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2020. Further to the Center’s latter email, the Respondent sent an informal email communication on July 23, 2020. The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2020. 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 operates facilities and provides senior living services, included assisted living services, nursing services and retirement home services. It has used the trademarks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING since 1981, including United States Trademark Registration No. 2850729 for SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, registered on June 8, 2004. The Disputed Domain Name The Complainant is one of the largest providers of senior living services in the United States. Since at least 1981, the Complainant has continuously used the marks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING (collectively, the “SUNRISE Marks”) in United States commerce to advertise, promote, distribute and sell senior living services, including assisted living services, skilled nursing services, retirement home services, and related services. The Complainant’s SUNRISE-branded services are advertised and offered throughout the United States. The Complainant operates hundreds of SUNRISE-branded facilities and employs tens of thousands of people. The Complainant has invested tens of millions of dollars to advertise and promote its SUNRISE-branded services and has earned many billions of dollars in revenues from the sale of SUNRISE-branded services. The Complainant owns numerous United States registrations for its SUNRISE Marks, including SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, for senior living services and related services, many of which are “incontestable” under the federal Lanham Act and the earliest of which issued over two decades ago. The Complainant’s registration for the mark SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING issued 16 years ago in June 2004. Since 2000, the Complainant has offered a website at “www.sunriseseniorliving.com” where it uses its SUNRISE Marks to advertise senior living services and related services. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or is preparing to use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or has made or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the SUNRISE Marks. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant’s SUNRISE Marks. The Complainant and the Respondent are not affiliated, connected, or associated with one another. The Complainant’s SUNRISE Marks are “arbitrary” for senior living services and related services because the term “sunrise” does not describe an attribute or characteristic of those services. Given the Complainant’s (i) use of its SUNRISE Marks for decades, (ii) annual revenues of billions of dollars from services rendered under the marks, (iii) ownership of numerous trademark registrations for its SUNRISE Marks, as well as (iv) the identity of the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant’s SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING mark, it is not plausible to conceive of a circumstance in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns registrations for the marks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, such as United States Trademark Registration No. 2850729 for SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, registered in 2004. Use of the Complainant’s mark is depicted at “www.sunriseseniorliving.com”. The Disputed Domain Name reflects the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The Top-Level Domain “.info” is disregarded in determining identity or confusing similarity. The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. The Disputed Domain Name is not in use, and therefore there is no evidence of bona fide use nor preparation to make such use. The Respondent’s name does not correspond with the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the trademarks SUNRISE and SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING. Given that the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s rights, it is unclear how the Respondent could utilize the Disputed Domain Name without infringing the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent did not file a formal response. Based on these unrebutted allegations, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith When there is no evidence in the record that a disputed domain name is being used, a complainant must establish that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could have adopted the disputed domain name without prior awareness of the Complainant’s rights, nor a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could use the disputed domain name legitimately. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Complainant has shown that as a result of its long-time exclusive use of SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING as the house mark for one of the largest senior living services providers, it now enjoys a strong reputation in that trademark. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Complainant has prevailed recently in two proceedings: Sunrise Senior Living, LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Domain Admin, Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anonima Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2020-1531 ( For these reasons, and considering that the Respondent did not submit a formal response or otherwise make any substantive arguments, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and thus the third condition of the Policy is met by the Complainant. 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, Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy