The Complainant is Sidecar Health, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Liqian, China.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 28, 2021. On September 28, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 28, 2021, 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 October 6, 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 October 12, 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 October 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 8, 2021.
The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 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 a privately held corporation, incorporated in Delaware, United States, with its headquarters in El Segundo, California. The Complainant provides personalized health care services to consumers.
The Complainant owns a registered trademark in the United States, being Registration No. 5968493, for SIDECAR HEALTH, filed on October 3, 2018 and with a date of registration of January 21, 2020. This registration claims a date of first use of August 25, 2019.
The Respondent did not file a response, so little is known of the Respondent. The Respondent’s address, according to information provided by the Registrar, is in China.
All the disputed domain names were registered on August 7, 2019, except
The disputed domain names all resolve to pay-per-click websites, that include affiliate program links to health insurance providers. These websites do not identify who operates them. The privacy statement and copyright notice on these websites have no name or contact details for the owner of these websites.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantIn summary, the Complainant makes the following submissions:
The Complainant is the registered owner of the
The Complainant has developed a strong reputation in the United States for its SIDECAR HEALTH trademark. In the United States, Sidecar Health owns the Complainant has been using the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark in connection with its health insurance services since at least as early as July 2019.
At the time the Respondent began using the disputed domain names, the Complainant had been using the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark for several months.
The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant and no authorization from the Complainant to use the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark, or to otherwise associate itself and its third-party affiliate links with the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant or the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark in any manner.
The disputed domain names are common misspellings of the Complainant’s SIDECAR HEALTH trademark. The disputed domain names include third-party affiliate links that direct a customer to other insurance websites. The use of the disputed domain names in this way, to re-direct traffic to a competitor’s website, further establishes that the Respondent does not have any rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Respondent intentionally, and for commercial gain, registered and is using misspellings of the Complainant’s SIDECAR HEALTH trademark in the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to its website to benefit from the third-party affiliate links and to direct potential customers of the Complainant to the websites of competitors.
The disputed domain names were registered on August 7 and August 10, 2019. This is just one and three days after a several third-party articles were published on August 6, 2019 with the title, “Sidecar Health Raise $18 Million in Financing...”. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names a mere few days after the Complainant’s positive financial announcement, which is a further indication that the Respondent was attempting to capitalize on the goodwill that the Complainant had established in the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark.
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 enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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 onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant even though the Respondent failed to submit a Response.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe first element of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As stated above in Section 4, the Complainant owns a registered trademark for SIDECAR HEALTH.
The disputed domain names all consist of obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s SIDECAR HEALTH trademark.
It is well established that where there is “typosquatting”, the domain name in question can be considered to be confusing similarly to the trademark. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-1314, DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Worshipping, Chrisler, and Chr, aka Dream Media and aka Peter Conover,WIPO Case No. D2000-1272, and Playboy Enterprises v. Movie Name Company,WIPO Case No. D2001-1201.
The Panel considers this to be a clear case of typosquatting.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent] has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [the Respondent] is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant.
UDRP panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or likely to be in, the possession of the respondent.
Accordingly, it is sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and an evidential burden will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case.
None of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) apply in the present circumstances.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark. The Complainant has rights in the SIDECAR HEALTH trademark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Previous UDRP panels have found, typosquatting does not constitute a legitimate use of a domain name. See, e.g., Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain is 4 sale,WIPO Case No. D2006-0694; Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. Oleg Techino,WIPO Case No. D2006-1537; Serena & Lily, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,WIPO Case No. D2021-0568; and European Handball Federation v. domain admin, Xedoc Holding SA / Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2016-0057.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
In the present circumstances, the fact that the disputed domain names are clear examples of typosquatting, and resolve to websites which have pay-per-clicks that link to competitors of the Complainant, leads the Panel to conclude the registration and use of the disputed domain names are in bad faith. See Compare ZB, N.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,WIPO Case No. D2018-1959.
The Respondent’s conduct demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark. By registering the disputed domain names shortly after the Complainant received publicity of its capital raising, and then by using the disputed domain names to generate pay-per-click traffic, demonstrates that the Respondent specifically knew of and targeted the Complainant. See Fédération Française de Tennis (FFT) v. Daniel Hall, dotCHAT, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2016-1941.
The Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed itself of the opportunity to present any case of good faith that it might have. The Panel infers that none exists. Regal Funds Management Pty Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / John Clerk,WIPO Case No. D2020-2773.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. This also could disrupt the business of the Complainant.
Further, the Respondent appears to be involved in a pattern of bad conduct. See, for example, Coinbase, Inc. v. Information Privacy Protection Services Limited / liqian,WIPO Case No. D2018-0815; BPG SRL v. Liqian Hunanchangsha,WIPO Case No. D2016-0215.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Complainant succeeds on the third element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names.
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 names
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: December 22, 2021