The Complainant is 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Joe Barletta, United States.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 23, 2021. On August 24, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2021, 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 August 27, 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 August 27, 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 September 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 22, 2021.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is in the business of providing home care and related services. It uses the mark BRIGHTSTAR in connection with its business operations. The Complainant enjoys the benefit of registration of a number of versions of the mark BRIGHTSTAR in several jurisdictions around the world. For example, the Complainant is the registrant for United States Reg. No. 3608702 for the mark BRIGHTSTAR, registered on April 21, 2009, for, among other things, medical and nursing personnel placement, recruiting and staffing.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 14, 2020. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website for a purported business called “Bright Star Staffing”. The website states the business provides services relating to, among other things, the staffing of healthcare professionals.
The Complainant hired a private investigator to contact the Respondent but could not reach the Respondent. And the Complainant, through counsel, sent multiple communications to the Respondent demanding the Respondent cease use of the disputed domain name. These communications went unanswered.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsTo succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThis element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns registrations for the BRIGHTSTAR mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the BRIGHTSTAR mark in its entirety – this is sufficient here to establish confusing similarity. The presence of the additional dictionary word “staff” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent.
The Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts that:
- The Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent tried in a number of ways to communicate with the Respondent, but was unsuccessful in engaging in these communications. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that there is no record showing the Respondent is authorized to do business in the state of Massachusetts, where it appears the Respondent is located.
- The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s BRIGHTSTAR mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark.
- The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
These facts establish the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Respondent has not provided any evidence or argument to rebut this prima facie showing, and nothing in the record otherwise tips the balance in the Respondent’s favor.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Policy requires a complainant to establish that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] web site or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.
The Respondent has not provided any evidence pertaining to its registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts, among other things, that the Respondent should have known of the Complainant because of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and because of the “reputation and ubiquitous presence of the BRIGHTSTAR Mark on the Internet and in the medical staffing industry”. Similarly, the Complainant posits that the Respondent’s adoption of a domain name that incorporates the well-known BRIGHTSTAR trademark suggests that the Respondent is acting in bad faith in order to take “predatory advantage” of the Complainant’s mark. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the bad-faith purpose of intentionally misleading the public to believe that the Respondent is associated or affiliated with the Complainant.
The Panel finds these assertions, along with the composition of the disputed domain name and its use, sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent targeted the Complainant, and thereby engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Respondent’s failure to substantively respond to the Complainant’s demand letters serves as evidence of bad faith. Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Jameel Fort,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1774.
The Complainant has established this third element under the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: October 29, 2021