Westmore · UDRP DecisionAttainaetna.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <attainaetna.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AETNA trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that registration and use were in bad faith. Decisive circumstances included incorporation of AETNA, registration on the same date as the Complainant’s announcement of its “Attain” health experience, and use of the domain for a monetized parking page.
The timeline behind attainaetna.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 attainaetna.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how registration timing can strongly reinforce an inference of targeting. The domain did not merely contain the established AETNA mark; it paired that mark with “attain” and was registered on the date the Complainant announced its “Attain” offering. The monetized parking use then supplied evidence of commercial exploitation of the resulting confusion.
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 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
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around attainaetna.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.