Intermountainhealthcareinc.org, Intermountainhealthcaresinc.org

The timeline behind intermountainhealthcareinc.org

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

DECISION Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. v. [Name redacted] / Anson winder Anson winder Claim Number: FA2205001997410 PARTIES Complainant is Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin B. Perri of Blackstone Law Group LLP, US. Respondents are [Name redacted] / Anson winder Anson winder (“Respondents”), US. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org>, registered with Porkbun 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 23, 2022. The Forum received payment on May 23, 2022. On May 23, 2022 and May 24, 2022, Porkbun Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> & <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names are registered with Porkbun Llc and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Porkbun Llc has verified that Respondents are bound by the Porkbun Llc registration agreement and have 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 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 2022 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@intermountainhealthcareinc.org, postmaster@intermountainhealthcaresinc.org. Also on May 25, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no formal response from Respondents, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 21, 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 Respondents. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder”. Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines “The Holder of a Domain Name Registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement” and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant contends that the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names are effectively controlled by the same person, operating under several aliases. In support of its contention, Complainant has shown that on May 10, 2022, the day after the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> domain name was registered in the name [redacted], a spear phishing email purporting to be from Complainant was sent by Respondent Anson Winder seeking a response to the email address “a.winder@intermountainhealthcareinc.org”. On May 23, 2022, after the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> domain name had been taken down at Complainant’s request by the registrar, Porkbun Llc, the domain name <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> was registered in the name Anson winder Anson winder. These circumstances satisfy the Panel that both domain names are commonly owned or controlled by a single person, Anson Winder, who is using multiple aliases. Henceforth this decision will refer to Anson winder Anson winder as “Respondent”. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT On June 7, 2022, the Forum received email communications from one of the named Respondents, [name redacted], saying he had never been involved in any registration for the disputed domain names and was not aware that they were associated with his name until receiving the Complaint. According to Policy paragraph 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005) the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy pparagraph 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft. Although no request has been made pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of this decision redacted, the Panel is satisfied from the conduct of Respondent Anson Winder that [name redacted] had nothing to do with the registration of the domain names and that Respondent Anson Winder registered the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> domain name in the name of [name redacted] without [name redacted’s] knowledge or authorization. This constitutes identity theft. Accordingly, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), the Panel determines it appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the name of the person listed in the WHOIS registration information in relation to the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> domain name at the time of commencement of this proceeding (i.e. the respondent, as defined in Rule 1) be redacted. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., operates a hospital system with 24 hospitals, approximately 200 clinics, and several urgent care facilities throughout Utah and Idaho. Complainant has rights in the INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names as he is not commonly known as either domain name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of the INTERMOUTAIN HEALTHCARE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain names for any bona fide offer of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent redirects both domain names to Complainant’s legitimate website. Respondent registered the typosquatted <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark and uses them in bad faith in attempts to pass himself off as Complainant to conduct a spear phishing scheme, demonstrating bad faith attraction to commercial gain. 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: (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 has shown that it has rights in the INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,913,834, registered Aug. 22, 1995). The Panel finds Respondent’s <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark, with each including the mark in its entirety, removing spaces between words in the mark, one adding the letter “s” after the term “CARE” within the mark, and both adding the entity identifier “inc” before the inconsequential “.org” gTLD, which 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 names 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 names or names corresponding to the domain names 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 names, 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 names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. As mentioned, the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names were registered on May 9, and May 23, 2022 respectively and on May 10, 2022 the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> domain name was used in a spear phishing attempt. Both domain names resolve to Complainant’s official website “www.intermountainhealthcare.org”. 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 names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) (by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE mark when Respondent registered the <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names, and did so in bad faith, since both are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s mark. The <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> has been used in a bad faith spear phishing attempt and both domain names have been used in bad faith in attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <intermountainhealthcareinc.org> and <intermountainhealthcaresinc.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondents to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: June 25, 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.