WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Humana Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, NOLDC, Inc
Case No. D2007-0166
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Humana Inc., Kentucky, of United States of America, represented by Greenebaum Doll & Mcdonald PLLC, United States of America.
The Respondents are Spiral Matrix, Eldoret, Kenya and NOLDC, Inc., New Orleans, LA, USA.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
Each of the disputed domain names, <humanadrug.com>, <humanagold.net>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>, <humanamedical.com>, <humanapdpenhanced.com> and <humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 6, 2007. On February 7, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with each of the domain names at issue. On February 26, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent Spiral Matrix is listed as the registrant of the domain names <humanadrug.com> and <humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact in each case. On February 26, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent NOLDC, Inc. is listed as the registrant of the domain names <humanagold.net>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>, <humanamedical.com> and <humanapdpenhanced.com> and providing the contact details for the administrative, and technical contact in each case. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 2, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 22, 2007. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on March 26, 2007.
The Center appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2007. 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 large United States company operating in the health insurance and other related fields. Its revenue for the year ending December 31, 2005 was US$14.4 billion and it has approximately 11.1 million members.
The Complainant is the registered owner of trademarks for HUMANA and other related HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD trademarks in the United States and overseas. The Complainant has provided evidence of its extensive trademark applications and registrations for those trademarks and copies of its registration certificates for the mark. It is not necessary to list them all here, but some of the most significant of these trademarks are as follows:
(a) Registered trademark No. 1, 305,479 for HUMANA registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) on November 13, 1984;
(b) Registered trademark No.1, 576,782 for HUMANA registered with the USPTO on January 9, 1990;
(c) Registered trademark No.1, 566,321 for HUMANA GOLD PLAN registered with the USPTO on November 14, 1989; and
(d) Registered trademark No. 2,180,789 for HUMANA GOLD PLUS registered with USPTO on August 11, 1998.
These trademarks, together with the other trademarks incorporating HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD, of which the Complainant has provided extensive evidence, will be collectively referred to as ‘the trademarks’.
The Complainant has also registered a series of over 150 domain names, such as <humana.com> and <humana.net>.
The disputed domain names were registered by the respective Respondents on the following dates:
<humanadrug.com>, on March 25, 2006;
<humanagold.net>, on November 7, 2005;
<humanainsuranceco.com>, on November 28, 2005;
<humanainsurancecompany.com>, on November 7, 2005;
<humanamedical.com>, on November 7, 2005;
<humanapdpenhanced.com>, on November 16, 2005; and
<humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> on February 2, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that administrative panels in previous UDRP proceedings have determined that the Respondent Spiral Matrix and the Respondent NOLDC, Inc., are related companies or are different names for the same company and that they are appropriately treated together as respondents in the same proceeding.
The Complainant alleges that the contentious domain names, <humanadrug.com>, <humanagold.net>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>, <humanamedical.com>, <humanapdpenhanced.com> and <humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> should no longer be registered with the respective Respondents, but that they should be transferred to the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that this should be done because, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and the domain names have been registered and subsequently used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains that it can prove all three of these requirements and that the appropriate remedy is to transfer the domain names to the Complainant.
In support of its case on the first of these three elements, the Complainant relies on the registered trademarks to which reference has already been made and of which the Complainant is the owner. It then says that each the domain names <humanadrug.com>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>, <humanamedical.com>, <humanapdpenhanced.com> and <humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the HUMANA mark because they each incorporate the entirety of the well-established and famous mark and then add merely a generic expression that does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark. The Complainant also contends that the domain name <humanagold.net> is identical or confusingly similar to the HUMANA GOLD mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark in the domain name without more and that both expressions are the same.
The Complainant then contends, to establish the second element, that the Respondents have no rights or interests in any of the domain names because the facts show an obvious intention by the Respondents to trade on the Complainant’s HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD marks by using the domain names to operate portal websites promoting the goods and services of the Complainant’s competitors. This is done, it is contended, by linking the portal web sites to third party sites that promote goods and services in direct competition with the Complainant and also other goods and services that are outside the Complainant’s line of business. Nor, it is argued, can the Respondents establish that they have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name by bringing itself within any of the provisions of paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy. This is so, it is said, because the Respondents have not used any of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services and they do not operate a business under any name used as part of the domain names.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It contends that this is so because the evidence shows that the domain names were registered to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademarks in corresponding domain names as part of a pattern of conduct and that such conduct comes within paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy and constitutes bad faith. The Complainant also contends that the domain names were registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, namely the Complainant itself and that such conduct comes within paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy and constitutes bad faith. Moreover, the evidence also shows registration and use of the domain names to attract visitors to the Respondents’ websites for commercial gain and by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation of the goods and services offered on those sites, that such conduct comes within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that it also constitutes bad faith. Finally the Complainant contends that the use of the domain names to provide links to the Complainant’s competitors is itself bad faith registration and use.
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In that regard, the Panel also notes that the fact that the Respondents have not made submissions does not avoid the necessity of examining the issues and of doing so in the light of the evidence. The onus remains on the Complainant to make out its case and past UDRP panels have said many times that despite the absence of a submission from a Respondent, a Complainant must nevertheless show that all three elements of the Policy have been made out before any order can be made to transfer a domain name.
However, as the Panel will illustrate later, it is possible to draw inferences from the evidence that has been submitted and in some cases from silence. Indeed, Paragraph 14 of the Rules incorporates both of those notions into the procedures of the Panel.
The Panel therefore turns to discuss the various issues that arise for decision on the facts as they are known.
The first issue is the correct description of the Respondent and the consolidation of the proceedings. The Complainant has submitted that administrative panels in previous UDRP proceedings have determined that the Respondent Spiral Matrix and the Respondent NOLDC, Inc., are related companies or are different names for the same company and that they are appropriately treated together as respondents in the same proceeding. The previous decisions referred to are Dr.Ing h.c.F.Porsche AG v. Kentech, Inc. a.k.a.Orion Web a.l.a. Titan Net a.k.a. Panda Ventures a.k.a. Spiral Matrix and Domain Purchase, NOLDC Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0890 and American International Group Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, Titan a.k.a. Titan Net, NOLD , Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0839.
Having read those decisions, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission, finds that it is appropriate to treat the two parties as respondents in the same proceeding and will refer to them for convenience jointly as ‘the Respondent’. It is also appropriate to note here that a reading of the two cases referred to above reveals an identical modus operandi by the Respondent to that which it has adopted in the present case, i.e. registering domain names using famous trademarks and linking them to third party websites promoting goods and services that compete with the trademark owners’ products.
For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
C. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is to be noted that paragraph 4 of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove that each of the three elements is present. The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that each of the domain names <humanadrug.com>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>,
<humanamedical.com>, <humanapdpenhanced.com> and
<humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
HUMANA trademarks. That is so for the following reasons.
The domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks as they include the entirety of the famous HUMANA trademark together with other generic words, none of which detract from the overall impression given to the reader that the domain name is replicating the trademark and is intending to convey that fact to the reader. The Panel further notes that the expressions used in the domain names mean that they are domain names that will lead to websites dealing with drugs, insurance, medical services and the prescription of drugs provided by Humana, which is not in fact the case.
It has been consistently held by UDRP panels that the addition, as in this case, of generic names to a trademark does not negate or detract from what would otherwise be a finding of confusing similarity: see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Pinetree Development, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-0049 and Sanofi-aAventis v. Edith Van Der Linden, WIPO Case No. D2006-0372.
Moreover, once it is known that the Complainant is in the business of providing services relating to insurance, drugs, medical treatment and prescriptions, which the Panel accepts on the uncontraverted evidence is the case, it is likely that the objective bystander would also assume that the word “Humana” in the domain names is a reference to the Complainant and its HUMANA branded goods and services.
This is comparable to the situation that pertained in Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Kentech, Inc. a.k.a. Helois Lab a.k.a. Orion Web a.k.a. Titan Net a.k.a. Panda Ventures a.k.a. Spiral Matrix and Domain Purchase, NOLDC, Inc.WIPO Case No. D2005-0890, where the domain name <porsche-repair-parts.com> was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark PORSCHE, for it was widely known that Porsche provided repairs and parts.
Such a close correlation between the domain names and the trademarks and such an obvious attempt to invoke the name of a prominent trademark that consists of a coined and unusual word, can only be described as a confusing similarity within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel’s finding in this case is reinforces by the general impression that most consumers would form from reading the domain names is that they are invoking the well-known health insurance company Humana Inc.
As to the domain name <humanagold.net>, this domain name is identical to the trademark HUMANA GOLD.
In the case of all of the domain names, it is also now well established that confusing similarity and identicality as found by the Panel is not negated by the presence in the domain names of suffixes such as the gTLD suffixes ‘. com’, ‘.net’, or ‘. org’.
As the Complainant clearly has in all cases shown that it has rights in the trademarks as their owner, and as the Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar and, in the case of <humanagold.net>, identical to the trademarks, the Complainant has established the first of the three elements that it must prove under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.
But by virtue of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, it is open to a respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
“(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
Thus, if the Respondent proves any of these elements or indeed anything else that shows it has a right or interest in the domain names, the Complainant will have failed to discharge its onus and the complaint will fail.
The Panel’s task in deciding if a registrant has any rights or legitimate interests in a domain name is made more difficult when the registrant is in default and does not make a Response or any other form of submission. The Respondent in the present case was given notice that it had until March 27, 2007, to send in its Response, that it would be in default if it did not do so and that, by virtue of Paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel might draw appropriate inferences from that default.
It is well established that, as it is put in paragraph 2.1 of the Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, “…a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”.
The Panel, after considering all of the evidence in the Complaint and the exhibits attached to it, finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. The Respondent has not made any attempt to rebut this prima facie case, and the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in any of the domain names.
The fact that the Respondent chose the coined and famous name at issue for its domain names calls for an explanation, which the Respondent could have offered but has not.
Moreover, because of this similarity between the domain names and the trademark, it is apparent that the Respondent has appropriated the Complainant’s trademark without permission, giving rise to the inference that it did so for an illegitimate purpose, namely registering the domain names with the intention of misleading consumers. If there were a more innocent or legitimate explanation, the Respondent could have given it, but this it has failed to do.
In the absence of such an explanation the Panel is entitled to draw inferences adverse to the Respondent’s interests on that issue and to assume that ‘any evidence of the Respondent would not have been in [its] favour’: Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Dario H. Romero, WIPO Case No. D2000-1273.
Furthermore, the Respondent had the opportunity to bring itself within paragraph 4(c) of the Policy which sets out several criteria, any one of which, if proved, ‘is to be taken to demonstrate’ the registrant’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. However, the Respondent has not endeavoured to establish even one of the criteria set out in Paragraph 4(c), giving rise to the inevitable inference that it could not do so by credible evidence.
All of these factors support the conclusion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and that conclusion is re-enforced by the evidence that the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its well-known trademark nor to register a domain name incorporating that mark.
It is also apparent to the Panel that even if the Respondent had tried to bring itself within any of the above criteria, in all likelihood it would not have been able to do so. It cannot from the available record be said to have been making a bona fide offering of goods or services when it has used the Complainant’s trademark to offer products and services that are in some cases in direct competition with the Complainant’s goods and services.
An examination of the websites to which the domain names resolve shows that they carry a series of links leading to rival health insurance companies, medical services, drugs, prescription services and also to a large range of other blandishments in the lifestyle, motor car, real estate and entertainment genres.
Such an examination also shows that the website does not carry a disclaimer of any connection with the Complainant. Clearly the activities that have just been described do not amount to using the domain name for a bona fide purpose and it has never been so regarded in the UDRP context; see for example, the cases cited by the Complainant, Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. Albert Jackson WIPO Case No.D2004-0087 and America Online, Inc. Tencent Communications Corp., NAF Case No.93668 and the recent case Roche Products Inc. v. Eugene Geist, WIPO Case No. D2006-0697, where the Panel summed up the current UDRP position as follows:
‘There are numerous prior decisions under the Policy holding that the unauthorized appropriation of another’s trademark in one’s domain name and the commercial use of the corresponding website do not confer rights or legitimate interests upon the owner of such a domain name. See, e.g. America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, WIPO Case No. D2000-1374 (“it would be unconscionable to find that a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business”)’.
Moreover, the Respondent apparently is not named Humana, which excludes it from paragraph 4(c) (ii) and it has clearly been using the domain name for commercial gain to divert consumers in a misleading manner away from the official Humana websites to other and in some cases rival websites sites, which excludes it from paragraph4(c)(iii).
For all of these reasons the Complainant has shown that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and the Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the domain names was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, any one of which is evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, although other circumstances may also be relied on, as the four circumstances are not exclusive. The four specified circumstances are:
“(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location”.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out its case under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy.
With respect to paragraph 4(b)(iii), the Panel finds, first, that the Respondent in all likelihood registered the domain names knowing full well of the existence and fame of the HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD trademarks as a prominent health insurance company and as a supplier of medical services and with the intention of diverting part of the Complainant’s potential market for those goods and services to its own advantage. It is difficult to believe that the domain names were registered for any reason other than to attract potential users to the websites to which they resolved and to make money from doing so. Those internet users, attracted to the domain names, would in all likelihood otherwise have been potential customers of the Complainant's and to divert them in this way and to direct potential customers away from the Complainant and towards rival suppliers of pharmaceutical products can in this case reasonably be described as disrupting the business of the Complainant.
The Complainant became prominent as a provider of health insurance and related services many years before the registration of the domain names and the HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD marks must have been chosen by the Respondent as the nucleus of the domain names with the intention of trading on them and attracting internet users because of their fame
Moreover, it is not only health insurance for which the Complainant is well-known. Its own website makes it clear that it provides the services of information on drugs including “…quantity, dosage strength, side-effects, and other drug-specific information.”. It also provides information on locating physicians and pharmacies.
It is therefore clear that in devising its range of domain names, the Respondent cast a wide net to invoke all of the activities of the Complainant so as to induce as many consumers as possible to come to the Respondent’s sites, including those looking for information on insurance, medical services, the dispensing of drugs and prescription drug plans.
The evidence shows that the Complainant has its own websites where it promotes the goods and services just described. The Respondent’s websites, in contrast, promote other providers of health insurance and medical and pharmaceutical services. By necessary implication, the websites are therefore urging consumers to insure with and buy from, not Humana, but its competitors. These are clear attempts to solicit insurance and other business for the competitors. The same websites also promote an even broader range of goods and services unconnected with health and medicine.
It would be difficult, therefore, to contemplate a more obvious case of disrupting a trademark owner’s business than to urge potential customers not to buy its goods and services, but rather to buy the same products from rival suppliers and also to urge them to buy other products from other manufacturers. That is clearly what the Respondent is doing and what the Panel finds that it intended to do.
Moreover, the persistence just described, the use of not one but several domain names and the repetition of the conduct revealed in Dr.Ing h.c.F.Porsche AG v. Kentech, Inc. a.k.a.Orion Web a.l.a. Titan Net a.k.a. Panda Ventures a.k.a. Spiral Matrix and Domain Purchase, NOLDC Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0890 and American International Group Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, Titan a.k.a. Titan Net, NOLDC , Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0839, shows that within the words of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy the domain names were registered “… primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of …” the Complainant.
With respect to paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions also constitute bad faith in both registration and use within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The reasons why that element has been made out are as follows.
First, the Respondent has undoubtedly been attempting to attract internet users to its websites within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv), both with respect to the registration of the domain names and their use. Looking at the website, it is impossible to accept that this was done other than for commercial gain in one form or another.
Secondly, by using the Complainant’s trademarks HUMANA in the domain names, with additions which suggest that Humana’s goods and services may be ordered online at those sites, the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with those marks. That is so because the Respondent was attracting consumers drawn to the HUMANA marks by using that name, making generic additions to it and by that means creating misleading names. In the case of <humanagold.net> the Respondent simply appropriated the whole trademark and made no addition to it, but created the same likelihood of confusion by attracting consumers drawn to the HUMANA GOLD trademark.
Thirdly, the confusion that is likely to be created is confusion with the HUMANA and HUMANA GOLD marks about the affiliation of various products on the Respondent’s websites and as to whether they are the Complainant’s products or endorsed by it or are in some way associated with the Complainant. Clearly, consumers who are using the disputed domain names have arrived at the websites because they are seeking specific goods and services that they know are provided by the Complainant. When consumers also see other products of the sort described above being promoted on the website, they will in all probability assume that those goods and services are being promoted or provided with the imprimatur of the Complainant, which is not in fact the case.
The Panel finds that these circumstances create confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s site and the products and services on it and that the Respondent must be taken to have intended this confusion and to have been doing it for commercial gain in one form or another.
The facts therefore come within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and constitute bad faith both in registration and use, a conclusion that has often been reached by UDRP Panels on analogous facts; see for example the cases cited by the Complainant, Pacific Telsis Group v. E. Smith d/b/a/ The Ripe One, WIPO Case No.D2001-1053 and Costco Wholesale Membership, Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Yong Li, WIPO Case No.D2004- 0296; and also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Laboratories WIPO Case No. D2000-1100; MathForum.co v. Weiguang Huang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0743 and IndyMac Bank v. F.S.B. v. Jim Kato, FA 190366 (Nat. Arb. Forum). In this regard, the comments of the panelist in Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Laboratories (supra) are apposite:
“Complainant has alleged and the Panelist finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site. This constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv). InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Hari Prakash, WIPO Case No. D2000-0076; America Online Inc. v. Cyber Network LLP, WIPO Case No. D2000-0977”.
There are many UDRP decisions to the same effect.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent both registered and used the domain names in bad faith and that the Complainant has therefore made out the third of the three elements that it prove.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names <humanadrug.com>, <humanagold.net>, <humanainsuranceco.com>, <humanainsurancecompany.com>, <humanamedical.com>, <humanapdpenhanced.com> and <humanaprescriptiondrugs.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Dated: May 2, 2007