ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. Sk Freelance, Citiustechcom.com Case No. D2024-4343 1. The Parties The Complainant is CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited, India, represented by Vutts & Associates LLP, India. The Respondent is Sk Freelance, Citiustechcom.com, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 22, 2024. On October 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 22, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 28, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 4, 2024. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on November 5, 2024. On November 7, 2024, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding and the proceedings were suspended until December 7, 2024, pursuant to paragraph 17(a) of the Rules. The Complainant requested the reinstitution of the proceeding on December 10, 2024, at which point the Center reinstituted the proceeding. 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”).
page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 1, 2025. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, on January 6, 2025, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with the panel appointment process. The Center appointed Meera Chature Sankhari as the sole panelist in this matter on January 10, 2025. 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 leading Indian company which provides consulting and digital technology to healthcare and life sciences companies. CITIUSTECH is the Complainant’s corporate name and umbrella trademark (together hereinafter referred to as the CITIUSTECH or the “Complainant’s Mark”). CITIUSTECH was first adopted by the Complainant as its brand name and logo in the year 2005 when the company was established with the name Citius IT Solutions Private Limited. The Complainant’s Mark is also used as a part of the name of the Complainant’s subsidiary company in the United States of America (“USA”), CitiusTech, Inc., which was established on July 11, 2005. The Complainant then changed its own name to CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited on October 10, 2015. It is pertinent to note that the integral and conspicuous portion of the Complainant’s name – CITIUSTECH – continues to remain the same. The Complainant, ever since adopting the mark CITIUSTECH has continuously, extensively and for a long period of time used the mark and has met with tremendous sales for its products and services under the mark CITIUSTECH. Ever since its inception, the Complainant has generated a sales revenue of INR 100,418,800,000/- (which is approximately USD 1,256,249,229.88) up to the year 2023. To promote the Complainant’s Mark, the Complainant has spent large sums of money on advertisement and marketing. In the last decade, the Complainant has spent in excess of INR 905,900,000/- on sales and advertising expenses. The Complainant has won several awards and recognitions including #7 in The Top 100 Healthcare Technology Companies of 2022 announced by The Healthcare Technology Report, Star Performer in Everest Group PEAK Matrix® for Healthcare Payer Digital Service Provider 2022 and many more. The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademark registrations for CITIUSTECH in India including Registration No. 2700671 in Class 9 dated March 18, 2014; No. 3382199 in Class 42 dated October 5, 2016; and, in the USA through its subsidiary company including Registration No. 4628676 in classes 9 and 42 dated October 28, 2014. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain , which provides information about the Complainant and details of its widespread presence. The Complainant has also been successful in various UDRP domain complaints against registrants of domain names identical to or deceptively similar to mark CITIUSTECH including CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. Susan Stewart Susan Stewart, WIPO Case No. D2022-3775 and CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0086. The Complaint has been raised against the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent on September 25, 2024. The Respondent is reportedly operating from India. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.
page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s prior, coined and well-known mark and trade name CITIUSTECH and has incorporated the mark CITIUSTECH in its entirety. The term adopted and used by the Respondent for registering the disputed domain name, “citiustechcom” appears deceptively similar to the Complainant’s mark CITIUSTECH and to a layman the addition of the letters “com” is immaterial and does not differentiate the Respondent’s domain name from the Complainant’s Mark, since it is the Top-Level Domain which regularly appears on the Internet for websites for commercial organizations. Furthermore, the Complainant claims, when the domain names of the Complainant and the Respondent appear on the Internet, they appear as “www.citiustech.com” and “www.citiustechcom.com” and that a google search for the Respondent’s domain name, shows only information related to the Complainant. It is also submitted that the mark CITIUSTECH is an invented word. The use of this Mark either by itself or with slight variations or in conjunction with any other word causes deception. It is claimed that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s Mark CITIUSTECH and of its commercial value at the time of registering the disputed domain on September 25, 2024. The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any prior or legitimate right in the disputed domain. The Respondent has not been licensed or authorized either to use the Complainant’s Mark or to apply for the registration of a domain name including or deriving from it. It is submitted that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant nor is it commonly known or conducting business under the disputed domain name . For these reasons, the Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot be said to have any legitimate rights in the disputed domain because: a) the disputed domain name has been registered since September 2024, while no use of the disputed domain name can be ascertained; b) the Respondent is neither known by the disputed domain nor has it been licensed or authorized by the Complainant; and c) there has been no apparent effort to make noncommercial and/or fair use since the conduct of the Respondent negates the possibility that the disputed domain is used for noncommercial or fair purposes. The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s Mark and is registered for the sole purpose of squatting on the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant alleges that the primary purpose of registering and using the disputed domain name is to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s Mark. It is submitted that the disputed domain name is not in use for any noncommercial or fair purpose. The Respondent is not running any website under the disputed domain name. Moreover, as per the Complainant, the Respondent’s identity has been hidden behind a privacy service which prima facie indicates bad faith on the Respondent’s part, including concealment of contact information. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but apologized and stated in his email communications dated November 5, 2024 that the disputed domain name was created by mistake and expressed his intention to “close this domain”. No further communications were received from the Respondent despite the suspension of the proceedings for exploring settlement options and several follow-ups by the counsel for the Complainant.
page 4 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “com” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name which contains an additional term “com” is confusingly similar to the trademark, where the Complainant’s Mark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant has demonstrated that its Mark CITIUSTECH is a coined mark that is not commonly known and that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized either to use the Complainant’s Mark or to apply for the registration of a domain name including or deriving from it. It is submitted that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant nor is it commonly known or doing business under the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
page 5 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which is deceptively similar to the Complainant’s Mark. It is noted that the disputed domain name is not in use for any noncommercial or fair purpose. The Respondent is not running any website under the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s Mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Meera Chature Sankhari/ Meera Chature Sankhari Sole Panelist Date: January 22, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy