Healthyverily.com

The timeline behind healthyverily.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.

DECISION Verily Life Sciences, LLC v. Zhichao Yang Claim Number: FA2109001963908 PARTIES Complainant is Verily Life Sciences, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <healthyverily.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 16, 2021. The Complaint was received in English. On September 23, 2021, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <healthyverily.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 September 29, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 2021 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@healthyverily.com. Also on September 29, 2021, the Chinese and English 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 24, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Complainant alleges that because Respondent is conversant in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). Complainant contends that, since the <healthyverily.com> domain name is comprised of English words and resolves to a webpage featuring advertisements in English, the proceeding should be in English. The Panel agrees and will conduct this proceeding in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent’s <healthyverily.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VERILY mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <healthyverily.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <healthyverily.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant provides products and services in the healthcare industry. Complainant holds registrations around the world for the VERILY mark, including in China and the United States. Respondent registered the <healthyverily.com> domain name on September 30, 2020, and uses it to a webpage featuring competing pay-per-click advertisements. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant provides evidence of registration of the VERILY mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) (“Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Respondent’s <healthyverily.com> domain name uses Complainant’s VERILY mark and merely adds the term “healthy” and the “.com”. The addition of a term and gTLD to a mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <healthyverily.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VERILY mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <healthyverily.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. The WHOIS information of record identifies “Zhichao Yang” as the registrant and there is no information to suggest that Respondent is authorized to use the VERILY mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage featuring competing pay-per-click advertisements. Using a disputed domain name to host pay-per-click hyperlinks to competing goods or services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (”Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); see also McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with various hyperlinks to competing third-party websites. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <healthyverily.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Previous UDRP rulings against a respondent indicate a pattern of bad faith and may indicate bad faith in the present case. See Jeffrey Dean Lindsay v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC, FA 1787275 (Forum July 3, 2018) (“A reverse-WHOIS search for domain names registered to Lisa Katz (the person behind Respondent), reveals over 100 domains. “Of this list, 67 use the same email, support@domainp.net, as the Complainant.” A search at the Forum, http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions, for cases with “Lisa Katz” in the case title reveals 21 cases, 19 of which resulted in decisions to transfer (one was denied and one was withdrawn. Respondent has been involved in 28 WIPO cases. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)”). Complainant provides evidence of Respondent’s previous adverse UDRP rulings and screenshots of related webpages showing Respondent’s pattern of using infringing domain names to host pay-per-click hyperlinks. Thus, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to hosts competing pay-per-click advertisements on the resolving webpage. Using a disputed domain name to feature hyperlinks to competing goods or services is evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA1411001591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding that where the complainant operated in the computer industry and the respondent used the disputed domain name to offer competing computer related links, the respondent was disrupting the complainant’s business offerings in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <healthyverily.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: October 25, 2021 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.