About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Ascension Health Alliance v. Prateek Sinha, Ascension Healthcare Inc.

Case No. D2018-2775

1. The Parties

Complainant is Ascension Health Alliance of St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, United States.

Respondent is Prateek Sinha, Ascension Healthcare Inc. of Edison, New Jersey, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ascensionhealthcare.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2018. On December 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 2, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent of Respondent’s default on January 3, 2019.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2019. 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

Complainant is a large non-profit healthcare organization in the United States. Formed in 1999, Complainant operates in over 1,500 locations with over 90 hospitals in the country. For nearly two decades, Complainant has used the mark ASCENSION in connection with healthcare and insurance services. Complainant owns at least 19 trademark registrations for ASCENSION-formative marks, including several ASCENSION word and design marks (such as United States trade mark registration number 2478534, registered on August 14, 2001), as well as several ASCENSION HEALTH word and design marks (collectively, “the ASCENSION Marks”) in the United States.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ascensionhealthcare.com> on June 24, 2013. The website located at the disputed domain name (see below) indicates that Respondent is a healthcare management consulting firm.


5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has rights in the ASCENSION Marks through its trademark registrations and that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s ASCENSION Marks. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ASCENSION Marks. In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect of the disputed domain name because Complainant has national trademark rights in ASCENSION. Complainant maintains that the services provided by Respondent are identical to Complainant’s services. Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as evident by Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s communications.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant’s trademark registrations establishes Complainant’s rights in the ASCENSION Marks. Complainant’s marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name, which fully incorporates the ASCENSION and ASCENSION HEALTH marks as well as the dominant portion of the ASCENSION-formative marks. The inclusion of the term “care” does not alleviate the confusingly similarity.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears to offer bona fide healthcare-related services. Indeed, Complainant contends that Respondent provides healthcare management services that are “very similar, if not identical” to those offered by Complainant, but Complainant does not contend that Respondent is offering counterfeit or deceptive services. The base line fact is that Complainant appears to concede that Respondent is in fact offering a real world service via the disputed domain name. Moreover, Complainant has neither alleged nor proved that Respondent imitates Complainant when it offers these services. Although Complainant may have the starting ingredients of an ordinary, trademark infringement case against Respondent, the Complainant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of services. The UDRP is not appropriate to resolve such ordinary trademark infringement claims, which would be better resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Thus, Complainant has not satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel’s finding under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, it is not necessary to make a finding under this element.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel denies the Complaint.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: January 25, 2019