Complainant is Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.
Respondent is Registration Private, Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Jess Dudley, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2020. On July 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 7, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 8, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 11, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 3, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 4, 2020. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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 Complainant, a health care company base in the United States, offers software and technology-enabled systems for health care providers and their consumers. Complainant provides services under the mark CHANGE HEALTHCARE, and Complainant owns several registrations for its CHANGE HEALTHCARE mark in the United States, where Respondent lists its/their address of record. These include, among others, United States Registration Nos. 5,618,039 and 5,618,040 (both registered April 27, 2018). Complainant additionally owns the registration for the domain name The disputed domain names Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain names, In particular, Complainant contends that its registered CHANGE HEALTHCARE mark is “famous”, and that Respondent has engaged in a “phishing” scheme. In this regard, Complainant alleges that Respondent has merely used the disputed domain names to set up email accounts meant to confuse clients of Complainant into providing Respondent their sensitive financial information. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name registrations or use of the disputed domain names. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in sending out fraudulent emails, when Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant’s rights in the CHANGE HEALTHCARE mark. B. Respondents Respondent did not file a reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must determine whether the disputed domain names, Merely adding the letter “s” to a registered trademark has been found by UDRP panelists to be a common, and illicit, form of typosquatting that does not make a domain name any less “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, ESH Strategies Branding, LLC v. Kumpol Sawaengkarn, WIPO Case No. D2011-0843 (transferring The Panel therefore finds that both of the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that Respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “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”. Respondent did not submit a reply to the Complaint, however. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, although the disputed domain names appear to resolve to inactive webpages, Respondent has used emails associated with one of the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondent posed as official representative of Complainant, and sought to obtain sensitive financial information from Complainant’s clients in an apparent phishing scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, which Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, although the disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages, Respondent has used one of the disputed domain names to set up email accounts in a manner apparently intended to confuse clients of Complainant into providing Respondent their sensitive financial information. Hence, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Given the nature of the use of one of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names which incorporates Complainant’s registered CHANGE HEALTHCARE mark, the Panel finds that despite the passive website use, Respondent registered and used both disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, thereby evidencing bad faith. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 3.3, which notes that the “non‑use of a domain name” does not necessarily negate a finding of bad faith, but rather, that a panel must examine “the totality of the circumstances”. Overall, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy