Muscmychart.online

The timeline behind muscmychart.online

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Medical University of South Carolina v. Godwin Nwaobasi Case No. D2026-0857 1. The Parties The Complainant is Medical University of South Carolina, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States. The Respondent is Godwin Nwaobasi, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <muscmychart.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 March 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on March 4 and 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center commenced the panel appointment process on March 26, 2026. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 2026. 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. page 2 The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers, or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Medical University of South Carolina, United States, operating in the fields of research, healthcare, and education, enjoying common law trademark rights in MUSC from 1969 and owning the following trademark registrations for MUSC: - United States Trademark Registration No. 7,037,183 MUSC, registered on April 25, 2023; - United States Trademark Registration No. 7,358,839 MUSC HEALTH, registered on April 16, 2024; - United States Trademark Registration No. 3,094,683 MUSC MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, registered on May 23, 2006. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, with the patient portal service provided in partnership with MyChart by Epic, where patients can access their “MUSC MyChart patient portal” online via either “mychart.musc.edu” or “mychart.muschealth.com”. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on October 9, 2024, and it resolves to a website holding itself out as what appears to be an official MUSC or MUSC-authorized website providing a “How-To” guide to the MUSC MyChart patient portal, running embedded sponsored advertisements (including, but not limited to, ads for vitamins and supplements) throughout the website at the disputed domain name depending on how the Internet user accesses the disputed domain name to view the relevant website, while email servers have been associated to the disputed domain name. On February 6, 2026, the Complainant’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist email to the Respondent, without receiving any reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark MUSC, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name nor to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed page 3 domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website in which the Respondent is trading off the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark in order to drive traffic to its website with the intent that the visitors will click on the embedded sponsored ads for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark MUSC is well-known in the fields of research, healthcare, and education. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, for commercial gain via the pay-per-click sponsored ads featured on the website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. Moreover, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has also associated email servers to the disputed domain name, implying the possibility to use the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing or business email compromise scheme, which is a distinct possibility given the similarities between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s own “mychart.musc.edu” or “mychart.muschealth.com” domain names, which are used by the Complainant for its MyChart patient portal login sites. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is known to have targeted at least two other trademarks as domain names resolving to similar websites, all very clearly for the purpose of the Respondent’s financial gain through the ads embedded in the websites. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. However, as noted above, on March 4 and 5, 2026, the Respondent sent the following informal email communications to the Center: “Hello WIPO Team! I just got your message and decided to reply, I had some issues at work, am a loitke available now. pls what's going on?” (on March 4, 2026); “the domain was used in good faith in educating and passing information to users. If you insist you want the domain. It can definitely the transfered to the appropriate team. Thanks” (on March 5, 2026). 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 4 The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here “my” and “chart” (referring to the healthcare services provided by the Complainant to its patients), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. It is also well-accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.online”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the Respondent alleges that its website at the disputed domain name is used for “educating and passing information to users”, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has clearly been registered as a pretext for Respondent’s own commercial gain, as evidenced by the fact that the Respondent has embedded Google Ads into the alleged informational website at the disputed domain name. Where a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark is being used in relation to a genuine fan or informational site, UDRP panels have tended to find that a general right to operate a fan or informational site (even one that is supportive of the mark owner) does not extend to registering or using a domain name that is identical to the complainant’s trademark, particularly as such an impersonation of the domain name may be misunderstood by Internet users as being somehow sponsored or endorsed by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.7.2. In the present case, the Panel finds that, although not identical to the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “my” and “chart”, referring to the healthcare services provided by the Complainant to its patients, and being almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name “mychart.musc.edu”) carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. page 5 Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark MUSC in the fields of research, healthcare, and education is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because in the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent is providing a “How-To” guide to the Complainant’s MUSC MyChart patient portal. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since on the website at the disputed domain is provided a “How-To” guide to the Complainant’s MUSC MyChart patient portal, running embedded sponsored advertisements (including, but not limited to, ads for vitamins and supplements) throughout the website at the disputed domain name depending on how the Internet user accesses the disputed domain name to view the relevant website. Therefore, despite the Respondent’s assertion to the contrary, the Panel finds that under the circumstances of this case the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business. The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent more likely than not intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “my” and “chart” (referring to the healthcare services provided by the Complainant to its patients, and being almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name “mychart.musc.edu”), further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Finally, since the MX records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated, noting the nature of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “my” and “chart”, referring to the healthcare services provided by the Complainant to its patients), the Panel deems that there is a risk that email communications using the disputed domain name could be perceived as coming from the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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, <muscmychart.online>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: April 9, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.