The Complainant is Cigna Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ladas & Parry, United States.
The Respondent is Lin Yanxiao, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 12, 2020. On October 12, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 13, 2020, 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 October 13, 2020, 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 18, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 9, 2020. The Center appointed Gareth Dickson as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 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 The Complainant is Cigna Corporation, a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business in Philadelphia, United States. It is a global health services company with insurance subsidiaries that provide medical, dental, disability, life and accident insurance in over 30 countries and provides these services under the mark CIGNA (the “Mark”). The Complainant is the owner of a number of trade mark registrations around the world for or incorporating the Mark, including the following: - Colombian trade mark CIGNA registration number 130539, registered on March 9, 1985; The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain name registrations comprising the Mark such as The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2010. Depending on how it is accessed, it currently directs Internet users to a number of different webpages, including pages claiming that the user’s anti-virus software has expired, to the webpages of those who compete directly with the Complainant, or to still different pages featuring advertising. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that it has rights in the Mark by virtue of its ownership of various trade mark registrations for the Mark around the world. It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark since it incorporates the Mark (which is recognisable within the disputed domain name) under the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) for Colombia, “.co”. The Complainant confirms that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent without its permission and that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. It alleges that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name variously to redirect Internet users to webpages claiming that those users’ anti-virus software has expired, to seek to install software on the user’s web browser, to the webpages of those who compete directly with the Complainant or to a number of different pages featuring advertising. The Complainant submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent: has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; is making, or intends to make, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it or has ever used or demonstrated preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, in light of its identity to the Mark and the fact that the Respondent has registered a very large number of domain names which are identical to (or in some cases are very close misspellings of) well-known trade marks, which has led to the Respondent having been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in several earlier UDRP cases. The Respondent’s own use of the disputed domain name to, inter alia, redirect Internet users to the webpages of the Complainant’s direct competitors, is also alleged to be in bad faith. Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attempt to deceive consumers into believing that there is an affiliation between the Complainant and other healthcare companies. Together, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, which applies to the “.co” ccTLD, the Complainant bears the burden of proving that: i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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. These criteria are cumulative. The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of these elements means the Complaint must be denied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the owner of, and therefore has rights in, the Mark. Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides that the “[ ] test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name” and “[t]his test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name”. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark, since the Mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the ccTLD “.co” does not alter this conclusion. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Although a complainant is required to demonstrate that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, as explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that where a complainant establishes 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. In the current proceeding, the Complainant has established its prima facie case. The Complainant states that it has not given the Respondent permission to use the Mark, in a domain name or otherwise, and submits that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any common law rights to use the Mark, is commonly known by the Mark or has chosen to use the Mark in the disputed domain name in any descriptive manner or is making any use of the disputed domain name that would establish rights or legitimate interests as a result of a noncommercial or fair use of it. Furthermore, the redirection of Internet users to websites of direct competitors of the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide sale of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy. There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has made any reasonable and demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has the Respondent shown any intention of making noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By not participating in these proceedings, the Respondent has failed to refute the Complainant’s prima facie case that it has met its burden under the second UDRP element. As clearly stated in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[…] a panel’s assessment will normally be made on the basis of the evidence presented in the complaint and any filed response. The panel may draw inferences from the absence of a response as it considers appropriate, but will weigh all available evidence irrespective of whether a response is filed”. Having reviewed and weighed the available evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered many years after the Mark was registered, including the Colombian trade mark registration number 130539, and that the Respondent has a history of registering domain names incorporating third parties’ trade marks. As a result, and in the absence of evidence from the Respondent that the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Mark is coincidental or permitted, the Panel must conclude that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the Mark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that it registered it in bad faith since it attempted to appropriate for the Respondent, without the consent or authorisation of the Complainant, rights in the Complainant’s Mark and to use those rights, and the inevitable confusion of Internet users, for its own advantage. The Panel also finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent is taking advantage of Complainant's mark to redirect Internet users to the websites of Complainant's direct competitors, which is one of the examples of bad faith use of a domain name cited in section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In addition, use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites which state that the users’ anti-virus software has expired, and invites them to download software which has nothing at all to do with the owner of the trade mark used to entice them to that website in the first place, constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain name. Therefore, and on the basis of the information available to it, the Panel must, and does, find that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, is without justification and is inconsistent with the Complainant’s exclusive rights in the Mark. Consideration of these and other factors militates in favour of a finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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, Gareth Dickson
- United States trade mark CIGNA registration number 1270224, registered on March 13, 1984; -
- United States trade mark CIGNA registration number 4298900, registered on March 5, 2013; and
- United States trade mark CIGNA registration number 4298899, registered on March 5, 2013;
(the “Mark”).
Sole Panelist
Date: December 1, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy