My-medicalert.com

The timeline behind my-medicalert.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 MedicAlert Foundation United States, Inc. v. Mr James Kirkby-Bott Claim Number: FA2204001991908 PARTIES Complainant is MedicAlert Foundation United States, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Steiner of Duane Morris LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mr James Kirkby-Bott (“Respondent”), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <my-medicalert.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 11, 2022. The Forum received payment on April 11, 2022. On April 12, 2022, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <my-medicalert.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 May 9, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 6, 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@my-medicalert.com. Also on May 9, 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 June 13, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, MedicAlert Foundation United States, Inc., provides medical emergency services and related products, including educational materials and jewelry which contains the owner’s personal and/or medical information for use in case of an emergency. Complainant has rights in the MEDICALERT mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <my-medicalert.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <my-medicalert.com> domain because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s MEDICALERT mark. Respondent registered <my-medicalert.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MEDICALERT mark and uses it in bad faith because it resolves to an inactive webpage. Further, Respondent attempts to create confusion for unsuspecting users that may believe the resolving website is associated with the Complainant. A consumer or emergency health official viewing the <my-medicalert.com> domain name may mistakenly believe that Complainant is no longer in operation and the life-saving information Complainant previously provided is no longer retrievable. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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: the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and 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 has shown that it has rights in the MEDICALERT mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,334,545, registered Nov. 13, 2007). The Panel finds the <my-medicalert.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the entire mark and adds the word “my” and a hyphen, which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable 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; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <my-medicalert.com> domain name was registered on March 20, 2017, many years after Complainant registered its MEDICALERT mark. It resolves to an inactive webpage which displays the error message “Oops! Your site is not published.” On the same day, Respondent also registered the domain name <my-medic-alert.com> which this Panel recently ordered transferred to Complainant. See MedicAlert Foundation United States, Inc. v. Mr James Kirkby-Bott, FA2204001991909 (Forum June 7, 2022). These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <my-medicalert.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The four illustrative circumstances of bad faith registration and use of a domain name set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s MEDICALERT mark when Respondent registered the <my-medic-alert.com> domain name and that Respondent’s inactive use of the domain name and failure to file a response support a finding of bad faith registration and use. In this regard the Panel adopts the reasoning in Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1588079 (Forum December 28, 2014): “…Respondent fails to use the confusingly similar domain name for any technical Internet purpose; there is no indication that the domain name is connected with a website, mail server, or other Internet device. Without any evidence or argument opposing Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s holding of the trademark identical domain name gives rise to an inference of bad faith, the Panel finds in harmony with such contention. Under the circumstances, Respondent’s seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <my-medicalert.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: June 14, 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.