WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. Domain Admin, Abadaba S.A.

Case No. D2020-1838

1. The Parties

The Complainant is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, United States of America (“US”), represented by Seyfarth Shaw, US and United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Abadaba S.A., Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <myuhc.org> is registered with Sea Wasp, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2020. On July 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 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 July 17, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 20, 2020 to reflect the registrant information received from the Registrar.

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 July 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 11, 2020.

The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 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 an innovator in the health care industry, providing health care benefit products and services, population health management services, and health information, technology, and consulting services in the US and over 20 other countries through a network of corporate affiliates. The Complainant has provided over the years a diverse range of health-related products and services to both individual consumers and benefit sponsors around the world under the trademarks UNITEDHEALTHCARE, UNITEDHEALTHCARE & Design, and MYUHC.COM.

The Complainant launched an online portal for consumers to securely access their health care and benefit information online, located at <myuhc.com>, which the Complainant registered as a domain name on July 4, 1999 and as a service mark in the US on November 5, 2002 (trademark registration no. 2,645,558).

The disputed domain name was registered on August 31, 2005 and it currently resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that its rights over the trademark MYUHC.COM predate the August 31, 2005 registration of the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has used the mentioned trademark in commerce continuously since at least August 28, 2000 in connection with providing online health and medical information, and online pharmacy services. Further, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark MYUHC.COM, save for the use of “.org” gTLD instead of “.com”.

In connection to the second element, the Complainant argues that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks, nor does it have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to defraud consumers who mistakenly believe it is associated with a legitimate website and/or domain name owned by the Complainant. As such, the website at the disputed domain name redirected consumers to click-through advertising for third party goods and services related to health care, which is the field of activity of the Complainant. Also, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a “phishing scheme” in which it posed as the Complainant via email and requested personal information from consumers in exchange for a purported refund from the Complainant.

With regard to the third element, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains that the Complainant has used and promoted its trademarks extensively in connection with health insurance benefits and services, and as a result has generated a significant amount of goodwill surrounding its marks. The Complainant serves more than 45 million people globally in health benefits delivered in connection with the Complainant’s trademarks. In 2019, the Complainant, through its worldwide network of companies, generated more than USD 242 billion in revenue, approximately 80 percent of which was in connection with products and services offered under the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant argues that the wide spread use of its trademarks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name support a finding of bad faith registration. In addition, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith as it not only used the website located at the disputed domain name for click-through advertising, but also in a fraudulent phishing scheme targeting consumers.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Notwithstanding the fact that no Response has been filed, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant.

“A Panel shall decide a 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” paragraph 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant must establish that it has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark for the Complainant to succeed.

Given the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved its rights over the MYUHC.COM trademark.

As regards the question of identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, it requires a comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademarks in which the Complainant holds rights. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “this 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”.

Also, according to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”.

In this case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark MYUHC.COM with the exception of “.com”. MYUHC is the dominant feature of the Complainant’s trademark and the mere omission of “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the dominant feature of the trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.

It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.org”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, if found by the Panel, may demonstrate the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to it 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 has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it 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.

The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, which states: “[…] 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”

In the present case the Complainant has established a prima facie case that it holds rights over the trademark MYUHC.COM and claims that the Respondent has no legitimate reason to acquire the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, according to the unrebutted evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Respondent apparently used the disputed domain name for scamming activities and such activity cannot amount to a fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. See Clifford Chance LLP v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Ellen Cheung / ons onso / Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2019-0050, and also section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “myuhc” or “myuhc.com”. See for a similar finding ALDI GmbH & Co. KG v. zhou xiaolei, WIPO Case No. D2014-0957.

By not replying to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith.

According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its MYUHC.COM trademark was widely used in commerce before the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Under these circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in a fraudulent phishing scheme targeting consumers. The evidence put forward by the Complainant in this respect has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The use of a domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers and employees constitutes bad faith on the side of the Respondent (section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). See for similar findings, e.g. Elecnor, S.A. v. Helroo, Safop.biz, WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0044.

As the website at which the disputed domain name redirected featured sponsored links in the Complainant’s field of activity and given the confusing similarity between the MYUHC.COM trademark and the disputed domain name, Internet users would likely be confused into believing that the Complainant is affiliated with the website to which the disputed domain name resolved. Presumably, the Respondent intended to benefit from the confusion created. It is likely that the Respondent earns income when Internet users click on the links in search of the Complainant’s services. This amounts to use in bad faith.

The fact that the website at which the disputed domain name currently resolves is inactive does not change the above conclusion. Passive holding of the disputed domain does not preclude a finding of bad faith, nor does it detract from the Respondent’s bad faith, as it has been established in prior UDRP decisions (e.g., Koç Holding A.S. v. KEEP B.T, WIPO Case No. D2009-0938).

Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration: “While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”

The following factors were considered by the Panel as indicative of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name:

- the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, even though awarded a possibility to do so. See, Awesome Kids LLC and/or Awesome Kids L.L.C. v. Selavy Communications, WIPO Case No. D2001-0210, Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ ROBERT GREEN, WIPO Case No. D2013-2100.

- the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name as per paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

- also, as noted above, the Panel has concluded that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent provided no explanations for which it registered the disputed domain name.

In the Panel’s view, these circumstances represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to bring evidence as to the contrary. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <myuhc.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: September 4, 2020