WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410481180 / Kaleb Martian

Case No. D2021-2666

1. The Parties

Complainant is Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.

Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410481180, Canada / Kaleb Martian, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 9, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 17, 2021, 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 Complainant on August 24, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 28, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 27, 2021.

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 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

Complainant provides insurance brokerage and risk management services. Complainant operates a commercial website at “www.sedgwick.com”.

Complainant holds a registered trademark for SEDGWICK with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 2,193,182 (registered on October 6, 1998), in connection with insurance brokerage and risk management services, with a 1992 date of first use in commerce.

The Domain Name was registered on June 22, 2021. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.

The post-Complaint information provided by the Registrar indicates that Respondent’s claimed street address is identical to Complainant’s.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark SEDGWICK through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the SEDGWICK mark, and adds the initials “cms” and the word “claim.” The initials “cms” are widely known in the insurance business to refer to “claims management system” or “claims management services,” and of course the word “claim” is used frequently in the insurance business. As such, these additional characters do not overcome the fact that the SEDGWICK mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable 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; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate his reason for registering the Domain Name. Given the additional abbreviation “cms” and the additional word “claim”, it appears that Respondent clearly had Complainant’s mark in mind. If anything, these additional characters reinforce the (false) association between the Domain Name and Complainant’s mark. As such, it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with some claim of legitimacy, and Respondent has not done so.

On the record presented, none of the above-quoted “safe harbors” under Policy paragraph 4(c) applies here, and the Panel cannot conceive of another right or legitimate interest Respondent may have vis-à-vis the Domain Name.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “rights or legitimate interests” section. As stated above, Respondent clearly targeted Complainant and its trademark when registering the Domain Name.

As noted above, the Panel cannot conceive of any good-faith use to which Respondent could put the Domain Name. On the contrary, it appears more likely than not that Respondent harbors some ill motive, albeit not yet manifest in conduct, with respect to the Domain Name. The fact that Respondent lists Complainant’s street address as his own address does not bode well for Respondent. It appears that there may be some plan to impersonate Complainant for some improper form of financial gain. No other explanation leaps to mind.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 <sedgwickcmsclaim.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2021