The Complainant is Signify Health, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hitchcock Evert LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2021. On April 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 7, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 11, 2021 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 April 14, 2021. 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 April 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 9, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2021. 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 is a provider of in-home, technology-enabled healthcare services, collaborating with health plans, pharma, and other organizations to improve quality of life by providing comprehensive care. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in the trademark SIGNIFY HEALTH, for example United States trademark registrations no. 6,097,023 and no. 6,097,028 (both registered on July 7, 2020). The Domain Name was registered on April 4, 2021. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name redirects to a click per view web page offering bitcoin. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark because it adds only the letter “y” to the operative portion of the trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no trademark or intellectual property rights or any other legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather to divert traffic from the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent seems to be a serial cybersquatter, named as the respondent in at least 173 UDRP WIPO complaints since 2012. The Respondent has acted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to divert traffic from the Complainant’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SIGNIFY HEALTH. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant´s trademark, with the addition of the letter “y”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity test under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”); see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that there is no evidence that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. When a domain name is confusingly similar (in particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a trademark can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Based on the case file, and in particular the history of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to divert traffic to obtain click-through-revenue by redirecting visitors. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 4, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy