Westmore · UDRP DecisionSamsunghealthcare.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <samsunghealthcare.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known SAMSUNG mark because it incorporated the mark in full with the addition of “healthcare.” The Complainant made an unrebutted prima facie showing that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established under paragraph 4(b)(iv) because the domain resolved to a website containing Samsung-related links that invited an association with the Complainant and intentionally attracted Internet users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind samsunghealthcare.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind samsunghealthcare.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward application of the UDRP where a domain wholly incorporates a well-known mark, adds a descriptive term, and is used for a website featuring links tied directly to the trademark owner. The combination of mark-specific links and an unrebutted prima facie case supported findings on both legitimate interests and bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Si Woo Lee Case No. D2015-0103 1. The Parties The Complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, represented by You Me Patent & Law Firm, Republic of Korea. The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America / Si Woo Lee 1 of Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <samsunghealthcare.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2015. On the same date, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 23, 2015, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response, disclosing the registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. Also on January 23, 2015, the Center provided the Complainant with the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and invited the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint with the Center on January 26, 2015, which was acknowledged by the Center on the same day. On January 28, 2015, the Center notified the Complainant that the Complaint and annexes did not comply with file size and formatting requirements. On January 29, 2015, the Complainant re-submitted the documents in compliance with the requirements. On the same date, the Center acknowledged receipt of the re-submitted documents. The Center verified that the Complaint and the re-submitted 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the amended Complaint, by both email and courier delivery, and the proceedings commenced on February 9, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was March 1, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on March 6, 2015, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2015. 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 describes itself as a company incorporated under Korean law, a flagship affiliate of the Samsung Group, and “in the business of manufacturing and selling a variety of goods ranging from consumer electronics … to electronic gadgets”. The Complainant holds a large number of registrations for trademarks comprising the SAMSUNG mark, in a number of countries, including the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. One of the Complainant’s SAMSUNG marks registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was first used in commerce in March 1993. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <samsunghealthcare.com> on April 7, 1999. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In addition, the Complaint states, inter alia , “Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to use the mark SAMSUNG or to register or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. Further, Complainant has never given a license or permission to Respondent to use Complainant’s mark.” B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules permit the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has rights in the SAMSUNG mark. It is a well-known mark worldwide. The disputed domain name <samsunghealthcare.com> begins with the Complainant’s mark in full, attaches the phrase “healthcare” (with a space between the two words omitted), and ends with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The additions are not sufficient to defeat confusing similarity. The SAMSUNG mark is the predominant portion of the disputed domain name. The first element of paragraph 4(a) is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing. The burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has defaulted. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise. The second element of paragraph 4(a) is also demonstrated. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must also show that the disputed domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are evidence of bad faith registration and use. Here, the disputed domain name resolves to a website whose content includes links for, among others, “Samsung User Manual”, “Samsung Shop”, “WWW Samsung com” and “Samsung Downloads”. Internet users are plainly invited to make an association between the site and the Complainant (and its products). In the Panel’s view, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] web site … by creating a likelihood of confusion with the [C]omplainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] web site”, as set forth in paragraph 4(b)(iv). The third element of paragraph 4(a) is also 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 name <samsunghealthcare.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ilhyung Lee Sole Panelist Date: April 6, 2015 1 The registration records the registrant as “Si Woo, Lee”.
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around samsunghealthcare.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.