Baylorhelath.com

The timeline behind baylorhelath.com

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Baylor University v. Domain Privacy c/o ICS inc. Claim Number: FA1311001531331 PARTIES Complainant is Baylor University (“Complainant”), represented by Megan R. Myers of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Privacy c/o ICS inc. (“Respondent”), Cayman Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <baylorhelath.com>, registered with TUCOWS, INC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 22, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 22, 2013. On November 25, 2013, TUCOWS, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <baylorhelath.com> domain name is registered with TUCOWS, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TUCOWS, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TUCOWS, INC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On November 26, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@baylorhelath.com. Also on November 26, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 23, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant was chartered in 1845 and is the oldest continually operating institution of higher learning in Texas and the largest Baptist university in the world. Complainant owns registrations for various trademarks that contain the name “Baylor,” including BAYLOR and BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Complainant uses its marks extensively in connection with medical-related services and education, primarily by licensing them to Baylor Health Care System (BHCS) and entities. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <baylorhelath.com> is confusingly similar to its marks. The domain name incorporates the BAYLOR mark in its entirety, combined with a misspelling of “health.” Complainant asserts that the domain name is designed to attract users seeking the official website of BHCS at <baylorhealth.com> who accidentally type <baylorhelath.com> instead. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In support thereof Complainant alleges that Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is using the domain name for a web page containing links to competing products and services; that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; and that Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its marks. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. In support of this contention, Complainant alleges (in addition to the allegations already described) that Respondent is offering the domain name for sale for a price in excess of its costs, and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering others’ trademarks as domain names, evinced by at least 89 previous UDRP cases brought against Respondent ICS Inc., in the vast majority of which the complainants have prevailed. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s well-known trademark with a misspelling of the word “health” and the top-level domain suffix “.com”. These additions do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See Baylor U. v. Liburd, FA 1401911 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2011) (finding <baylorhelath.com> identical or confusingly similar to BAYLOR). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.” Bad faith may also be shown by evidence that Respondent “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.” Paragraph 4(b)(ii). In the Panel’s view, Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name in this case are indicative of bad faith under both of these provisions of the Policy. See Baylor U. v. Liburd, supra. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <baylorhelath.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: December 30, 2013 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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