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

CareSource v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/FAG

Case No. D2018-2411

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CareSource of Dayton, Ohio, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Roetzel & Andress LPA, USA.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, US A / FAG of Xiamen, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 23, 2018. On October 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 23, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 25, 2018 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 October 31, 2018

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 November 1, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 21, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 26, 2018.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on December 3, 2018. 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 the owner of the trade mark CARESOURCE registered in the USA for health related services and used in commerce since 2000. It owns the domain name <caresource.com>.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used for competing health related services not connected with the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CARESOURCE registered in the USA for health related services and used in commerce since 2000. It owns the domain name <caresource.com>. It offers a CARESOURCE Provider Portal as part of its services.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark containing it in its entirety, adding only the generic terms “provider” and “portal” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent this confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. It is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name was pointed to a parked page and now redirects to a site purporting to offer health care services not connected to the Complainant and links to services which compete with those of the Complainant. This is not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use. Rather it is bad faith registration and use as it confuses Internet users for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s CARESOURCE mark (registered in the USA for health related services and used in commerce since 2000), the generic term “provider”; and “portal” and the gTLD “.com”.

The addition of the generic terms “provider” and “portal” or the gTLD “.com” does not serve to prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s CARESOURCE mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the Complainant’s mark. The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial use.

Panels have found that a respondent is not using a domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services if it uses the name for competing services or to point to pay per click links diverting Internet users to a web site competing with the complainant under its mark.

It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name for competing health related services and to point to links to competing services which are not connected with the Complainant. The use of the particular combination of “caresource” with “provider” and “portal” when the Complainant has a CARESOURCE provider portal indicates that the Respondent was aware of the significance of the Caresource name and the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. The usage of the Complainant’s CARESOURCE mark which has a reputation for health related services in relation to similar services not connected with the Complainant is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of services.

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why it should be able to use the Complainant’s trade mark in this way. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As determined above the Respondent’s use of its site is commercial and it is using the site to make profit from the offer of and links to competing services not associated with the Complainant in a confusing manner. It seems clear that the use of the Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name would cause people to associate the website at the Domain Name with the Complainant and its business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site. This also appears designed to disrupt the business of a competitor.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and has satisfied the third limb 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, <caresourceproviderportal.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2018

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/