WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Georgetown Hospital System d/b/a Tidelands Health v. 广州白彦明网络科技有限公司 (guangzhoubaiyanmingwangluokejiyouxiangongsi)

Case No. D2021-0889

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Georgetown Hospital System d/b/a Tidelands Health, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., U.S..

The Respondent is 广州白彦明网络科技有限公司 (guangzhoubaiyanmingwangluokejiyouxiangongsi), China, unrepresented.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <tidelandshealt.org>, <tidelandshelath.org>, <tidelandshelth.org>, <tidlandshealth.org> and <wwwtidelandshealth.org> are registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2021. On March 24, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 26, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On March 30, 2021, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on March 30, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on April 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default in English and Chinese on May 7, 2021.

The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on June 2, 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, also operating as and known by the name Tidelands Health, is the leading and largest provider of healthcare services in Horry, Georgetown, U.S. and the surrounding South Carolina counties, and has provided healthcare services to the region for over 65 years. The Complainant has since 1950 grown to a strength of four hospitals and nearly 60 outpatient providers that stretch from North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Hemingway, South Carolina. It has more than 200 physicians and 2,000 employee partners. Since as early as April 2015, the Complainant has adopted and used the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark in connection with the marketing, advertising, promotion and provision of the Complainant’s healthcare services. The Complainant states that as a result of the Complainant’s extensive, continuous and substantial investment in and use of the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark in commerce, the mark has acquired a substantial amount of reputation and goodwill in the marketplace, which consumers recognize as belonging exclusively to the Complainant.

The Complainant owns U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 4,868,287 for TIDELANDS HEALTH, which was registered on December 8, 2015.

In addition, the Complainant registered the domain name <tidelandshealth.org> on April 16, 2014.

The disputed domain names <tidelandshealt.org>, <tidelandshelath.org>, <tidelandshelth.org>, <tidlandshealth.org> and <wwwtidelandshealth.org> were registered on January 14, 2021. They all resolve to parking pages with links to a variety of third-party services related to healthcare, such as “Online Appointment Scheduling”, “Get Covid Vaccine”, “Patient Appointment Scheduling”, “Health Survey” and “Electronic Medical Records”.¹

The Respondent has registered many other healthcare-related domain names, e.g. <belcountyhealth.org> (mis-spelling of <bellcountyhealth.org>), <oldhamcountyheathdepartment.org> (mis-spelling of <oldhamcountyhealthdepartment.org>), <cabarruheath.org> (mis-spelling of <cabarrushealth.org>), <vaccintogetherny.org> (mis-spelling of <vaccinetogetherny.org>), and <marylamdvax.org> (mis-spelling of <marylandvax.org).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

1. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark in which it has registered and common law rights. The disputed domain names are classic examples of typosquatting. The disputed domain names <tidelandshealt.org>, <tidelandshelath.org> and <tidelandshelth.org> are identical to the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark but for mis-spellings of the term “health” in each of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain name <wwwtidelandshealth.org> is identical with the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark but for the inclusion of the “www” prefix, which is a common element of any URL and typically not part of a domain name. The disputed domain name <tidlandshealth.org> is identical to the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH mark but for a mis-spelling of the term “tidelands”. The confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH mark is all the more likely as the Complainant owns and uses the <tidelandshealth.org> domain, which is virtually identical to the disputed domain names.

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark so as to trade off the Complainant’s business goodwill in order to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain in the midst of the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, given that the Complainant is a healthcare provider. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not known by the name “Tidelands Health”, “WWW Tidelands Health”, “Tidelands Healt”, “Tidelands Helth”, “Tidlands Health”, or “Tidelands Helath”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark nor is the Respondent a licensee of the mark. The Respondent’s parked webpages are not used in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services . The Respondent registered the disputed domain names solely for the purpose of earning click-through revenue by offering links to a variety of third-party healthcare related services. Such use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

3. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark to attract and divert Internet users to the Respondent’s webpages. A simple Internet search (including by using Baidu) would have alerted the Respondent to the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark. The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in the “.org” generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”), which is the same gTLD as that of the Complainant’s <tidelandshealth.org> domain name is further evidence of the Respondent’s knowledge and targeting of the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH mark. The Respondent has a pattern of targeting third-party healthcare providers by registering domain names corresponding to their names (including mis-spellings thereof). The timing of the Respondent’s bulk registration of healthcare-related domain names during an ongoing global pandemic and using the disputed domain names to resolve to pay-per-click websites featuring links for healthcare related services, including links related to COVID-19 vaccines, demonstrate bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:

“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

The language of the Registration Agreement in relation to the disputed domain names is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. The reasons are that:

(i) the disputed domain names are in the English language and comprise characters from the ISO basic Latin alphabet;
(ii) the websites that the disputed domain names resolve to contain English-language content;
(iii) the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names, which are comprised of characters from the ISO basic Latin alphabet;
(iv) the Complainant would have to incur substantial costs for Chinese translations and the administrative proceeding would be delayed.

The Panel is guided by section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which lists a number of scenarios which may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Having considered the circumstances and applicable factors, the Panel determines that it would be reasonable and appropriate for English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Respondent has chosen not to participate in this proceeding and that all of the Center’s communications with the Parties have been sent in English and Chinese. In the absence of any objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant further translate the evidence into Chinese and conduct the proceedings in Chinese.

6.2 Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established it has both common law and registered rights in the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark. The TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain names, albeit with mis-spellings in some of them and the addition of the letters “www” in the disputed domain name <wwwtidelandshealth.org>. The addition of the letters “www” is insignificant in nature and, in the context of domain name registrations, does not serve to remove the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark, which is incorporated entirely within the said disputed domain name. The Panel also agrees that the disputed domain names <tidelandshealt.org>, <tidlandshealth.org>, <tidelandshelath.org> and <tidelandshelth.org> are confusingly similar to the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark. The mis-spelling of the term “Tidelands Health” in the disputed domain names does not serve to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark. Further, the addition of the gTLD “.org” is a technical requirement for domain name registrations and not relevant to the issue of the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant’s use and registration of the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark long predate the registration date of the disputed domain names. The Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark in a domain name. Neither is there evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.

As the Complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to respond to or rebut the Complainant’s assertions in this proceeding. In the absence of any response from the Respondent and evidence to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel therefore finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is persuaded by the circumstances of this case that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark and had targeted it for financial gain, particularly with the ongoing global pandemic. One can surmise that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s domain name registration <tidelandshealth.org>, seeing that it took pains to register various mis-spellings thereof. The “registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith” (section 3.1.4 the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel finds that the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the Respondent’s pattern of typosquatting conduct, the Respondent’s failure to respond in this proceeding, as well as the nature of the links found on the parking pages to which the disputed domain names resolve, can only lead to a conclusion that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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 names <tidelandshealt.org>, <tidelandshelath.org>, <tidelandshelth.org>, <tidlandshealth.org> and <wwwtidelandshealth.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

Francine Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2021

¹ At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name <tidelandshelath.org> resolved to an inactive website.