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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Milliman, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0159172429 / Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2021-0625

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Milliman, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Adams and Reese LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0159172429, Canada / Milen Radumilo, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <millliman.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 2, 2021. On March 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2021, 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 March 9, 2021 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 March 11, 2021.

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 March 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 12, 2021.

The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on April 19, 2021. 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 American company considered one of the world’s largest independent actuarial and consulting firms operating in the areas of employee benefits, investment, property and casualty, healthcare and life and financial services. The Complainant has been active since 1947 and currently operates in various markets throughout the world and has over 60 offices located in all continents.

The Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the mark MILLIMAN, as well as for other marks composed by MILLIMAN in numerous jurisdictions around the world, such as the United States trademark registration No. 2535009 for business consulting services in class 35, registered in January 29, 2002. The Complainant first used the MILLIMAN & ROBERTSON mark in 1957 and the MILLIMAN mark in 2001. Evidence of these registrations was presented as Annex 6 of the Complaint.

The Complainant advertises its goods and services through various websites, including its principal website “www.milliman.com”. The Complainant also owns many domain names incorporating the MILLIMAN mark or common misspellings thereof.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 31, 2020. The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent by addressing a cease-and-desist (“C&D”) letter, which was never responded. A copy of this attempt was shown as Annex 5.

The disputed domain name, as at the date of this decision, resolves to a malware website that attempts to access and damage Internet users’ computer systems.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <millliman.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark registered and used worldwide.

In fact, the disputed domain name is a blatant reproduction of the mark MILLIMAN, with the intentional addition of an extra “L”, in a clear case of typosquatting, to divert users to a dubious website which is likely being used for scamming and spreading malware.

The Complainant uses the mark MILLIMAN to identify its services and website for a long time, the first application dating back to 1999. The mark identifies the goods and services from the Complainant all over the world. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations obtained in different jurisdictions, as stated in Annex 6 of the Complaint.

The Complainant informs that prior to the presentation of this Complaint, attempted to contact the Respondent to seek a settlement on the dispute, and the Respondent never answered.

The disputed domain name adopted by the Respondent – a reproduction of the registered mark with an additional “L” – shows a clear intention of misleading the Internet users to a malware website.

Moreover, the Complainant highlights that the Respondent has a pattern of bad faith conduct, as he has been named respondent in at least 88 other UDRP proceedings.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:

i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
ii. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name; and
iii. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has presented adequate proof of having rights in the mark MILLIMAN, registered throughout the world. In addition, the Complainant has been providing a full range of services worldwide for several decades, firstly as MILLIMAN & ROBERTSON, and under the MILLIMAN mark for at least 20 years.

Further, the Panel finds that disputed domain name <millliman.com> is indeed confusingly similar to the trademark belonging to the Complainant, since this mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent with the addition of an additional and imperceptive letter “L”.

Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements in the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant in this dispute.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel understands that the mark MILLIMAN is naturally associated with the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name, but also has been used to identify the services rendered by the Complainant for years.

Further, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence of the fame of the mark MILLIMAN and the full range of services rendered under this name to its clients all over the world. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent, in all likelihood, could not be unaware of the mark MILLIMAN, and its direct relation to the Complainant.

In fact, the Complainant presented evidence that the disputed domain names have been used to direct the internet users to a suspicious website, most probably dedicated to disseminate malware.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This has not been rebutted by the Respondent.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For this reason, the Panel believes that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is clear to the Panel that the Respondent has in all probability registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark.

As mentioned above, the disputed domain name consists of an obvious typosquatting variation of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark. It has been used for a website, which was most likely intended to distribute malware or for other illicit purposes.

Further, the Respondent’s use of a service providing privacy or proxy registration, along with the Respondent’s involvement in numerous previous UDRP cases decided in favor of the complainants, are further evidence in support of a finding of bad faith.

In addition, proof has been made of an attempt of contacting the Respondent. The Respondent never answered the letter. Also the Respondent has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, let alone to put forward any legitimate reason for registering and using the disputed domain name.

All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved 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 <millliman.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/