Trellisrx.works

The timeline behind trellisrx.works

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 Trellis Rx, LLC v. Hinal Patel Claim Number: FA2210002018157 PARTIES Complainant is Trellis Rx, LLC (“Complainant”), USA, represented by Danielle Muñoz of Goldberg Kohn Ltd., US. Respondent is Hinal Patel (“Respondent”), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <trellisrx.works>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 28, 2022; Forum received payment on October 28, 2022. On October 31, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trellisrx.works> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 7, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 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@trellisrx.works. Also on November 7, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 i) Complainant, Trellis Rx, LLC, offers various healthcare-related services. Complainant asserts rights in the TRELLIS RX mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., reg. no. 6,080,420, registered June 16, 2020). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the TRELLIS RX mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.works” to form the disputed domain name. ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TRELLIS RX mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by sending fraudulent emails. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2022. 2. Complainant has established rights in the TRELLIS RX mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., reg. no. 6,080,420, registered June 16, 2020). 3. The disputed domain name remains inactive. 4. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by sending fraudulent emails. 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 asserts rights in the TRELLIS RX mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., reg. no. 6,080,420, registered June 16, 2020). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is considered a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the TRELLIS RX mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <trellisrx.works> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the TRELLIS RX mark in its entirety, merely adding the gTLD “.works” to form the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TRELLIS RX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 disputed domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TRELLIS RX mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Hinal Patel.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name conveys no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). Here, Complainant has provided a screenshot of a web browser attempting to connect to the disputed domain name, showing it is inactive. The Panel finds Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant submits that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send emails from an email address ending in @trellisrx.works in order to lure individuals into providing personally identifiable information. Complainant specifically points out that Respondent is obtaining contact information for individuals who are looking for employment—likely by mining LinkedIn—and then sending offers of employment or job applications that appear to originate from Complainant. Complainant has provided a copy of email and its attachment showing offering someone a position as an administrative assistant with Complainant. The email attachments feature Complainant's distinctive logo and address and likely appear legitimate to unsuspecting individuals. The Panel infers on the balance of probabilities that Respondent fraudulently impersonates Complainant in an attempt to induce individuals to disclose personal information that would typically be disclosed in an employment relationship (such as a home address, financial information, etc.). Use of a disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Thus, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (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 <trellisrx.works> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: December 9, 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.