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

Aetna Inc. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org / Qian Mengdan

Case No. D2019-0414

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aetna Inc. of Hartford, Connecticut, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona United States / Qian Mengdan, Nanjing, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <attainaetna.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 February 21, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 21, 2019, 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 February 25, 2019 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 February 26, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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, and the proceedings commenced on February 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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

The Complainant founded in 1853, is one of the leading diversified health care benefits companies in the United States, serving an estimated 39 million people. The Complainant offers a broad range of traditional, voluntary and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services, including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities. The Complainant was acquired by CVS Health on November 28, 2018. The Complainant has been ranked as number 43 on the “Fortune 500” list of largest corporations in the United States. The Complainant, through its subsidiary Aetna Life Insurance Company, is the registrant of the domain name <aetna.com> (created November 2, 1993), which it uses in connection with its primary website. On January 29, 2019, the Complainant announced the launch of “Attain,” a health experience designed by Complainant through the use of an Apple Watch.

The Complainant owns around 137 trademark registrations in different jurisdictions worldwide for marks that consist of or contain “AETNA”, such as United States Trademark Registration No. 1,744,804 and No. 4,330,567.

According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on January 29, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a monetized parking page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Domain Name incorporates the AETNA trademark in its entirety. The addition of the word “attain” does not prevent confusion. The Domain Name was created on the same date on which Complainant announced the launch of its “Attain” app. This is additional evidence of confusing similarity.

The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the AETNA trademark in any manner. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Domain Name, and there is no evidence of use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant and its trademark. It is inconceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant’s activities. Further, the Domain Name has been used in connection with a monetized parking page. This constitutes bad faith. Finally, the Respondent registered the Domain Name on January 29, 2019, the same date on which the Complainant announced the launch of its “Attain” app. The timing is another indication of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark AETNA. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates in entirety the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the term “attain” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Domain Name has resolved to a monetized parking page.

The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Domain Name incorporates the trademark AETNA. Taking into account the fame of the Complainant and its trademark, it seems more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when he registered the Domain Name.

Noting the use of the Domain Name in connection with a monetized parking page and the timing of Respondent’s registration, it seems that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name, <attainaetna.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 18, 2019

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/