Mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz

The timeline behind mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz

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 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Andrey Claim Number: FA2201001979121 PARTIES Complainant is Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth C. Buckingham of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Andrey (“Respondent”), Russia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz>, registered with Sav.com, LLC. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 5, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 5, 2022. On January 6, 2022, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC 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 January 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 31, 2022 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@mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz. Also on January 10, 2022, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Mayo Clinic that owns its intellectual property, including its trademarks, service marks, copyright, and domain name registrations. Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit worldwide leader in medical care, research and education. Every year, more than a million people from all fifty states and nearly one hundred forty countries come to Mayo Clinic for care. Mayo Clinic delivers the highest quality medical care through a physician-led team of diverse practitioners involved in providing clinical, educational, diagnostic, and research services in a unified multi-campus system. Since its establishment in 1914, Mayo Clinic has been widely regarded as a leading medical center for medical research and specialist education. Additionally, Mayo Clinic provides an online patient portal for its patients through its Patient Online Services. Using this patient portal, patients can gather their electronic health records and view other health information. Complainant has rights in the MAYO CLINIC mark based on its registration of the mark in the United States in 1990. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAYO CLINIC mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “patient portal” and the “.xyz” generic top level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MAYO CLINIC mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to adult-oriented content. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host adult-oriented content. Additionally, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MAYO CLINIC mark based on the fame of the mark, the inclusion of the entire mark in the disputed domain name, and its similarity to Complainant’s legitimate domain names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark MAYO CLINIC and its parent company uses it to provide a variety of health care services. The mark is famous. Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1990. The disputed domain name was registered in 2021. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering adult entertainment material. 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 The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s MAYO CLINIC mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “patient portal” and the “.xyz” generic top level domain (“gTLD”). The addition of generic terms and a gTLD to a mark may not be sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its MAYO CLINIC mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Andrey” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to adult-oriented content. Using a disputed domain name to divert users seeking a complainant to adult-oriented material does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Twitter, Inc. v. Kiribati Media / Kiribati 200 Media Limited-, FA 1603444 (Forum Mar. 19, 2015) (holding that, generally, a disputed domain which hosts adult-oriented material is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also U.S. Green Bldg. Council v. zhangui, FA 1812001822273 (Forum Jan. 21, 2019) (“Use of a disputed domain name to feature adult sexual content is not, under most circumstances, indicative of any rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Karen Koehler v. Hiroshi Ishiura / Lifestyle Design Inc., FA 1705001730673 (Forum June 1, 2017) (holding that “Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use because Respondent uses the domain name to host a pornographic website.”); see also Paws, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 0209000125368 (Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that using a domain name confusingly similar to an established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by a respondent”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to adult-oriented content. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and (iv), using a disputed domain to direct users to adult-oriented or unrelated material constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Molson Canada 2005 v. JEAN LUCAS / DOMCHARME GROUP, FA1412001596702 (Forum Feb. 10, 2015) (“Further, Respondent’s diversion of the domain names to adult-oriented sites is registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Therefore the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and (iv). 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 <mayoclinicpatientportal.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 8, 2022 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.