Relevatehealthcareers.com

The timeline behind relevatehealthcareers.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Relevate Health Group, LLC v. [Name redacted]1 Claim Number: FA2411002123739 PARTIES Complainant is Relevate Health Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Karen J. Bernstein of Bernstein IP, New York, USA. Respondent is [Name redacted] ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <relevatehealthcareers.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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 Forum electronically on November 6, 2024. Forum received payment on November 6, 2024. On November 6, 2024, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 November 7, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 27, 2024 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@relevatehealthcareers.com. Also on November 7, 2024, 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 2, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT/REDACTION REQUEST 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 paragraph 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft. Complainant has requested that the name of Respondent be redacted pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b). Complainant has shown that Respondent falsely identified itself as an employee of Complainant. 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 listed in the WHOIS registration information as the registrant of the <relevatehealthcareers.com> 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, Relevate Health Group, LLC, is a leader in providing advertising and marketing services to the pharmaceutical, healthcare and biomedical industries. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for RELEVATE and RELEVATEHEALTH (& Design). Complainant offers its services on its official website at "www.relevatehealth.com", which features its marks. Complainant uses the domain name <relevatehealth.com> as its official email address for communications with clients and the public. Respondent's <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name. There is no evidence to show that Respondent has ever been known by or operated a business under Relevate Health Careers, nor does Respondent have any trademark rights in that name. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or its business name and has not permitted Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark or for any other purpose. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant's employees to perpetrate a fraud on unsuspecting job applicants in obtaining their sensitive financial information. Respondent registered and is using the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent knew, or should have known, that its registration of the domain name would be confusingly similar to the Complainant's widely used RELEVATE and RELEVATEHEALTH (& Design) marks. Respondent targeted Complainant when it registered the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name and uses it to impersonate Complainant and its employees to lure job applicants into believing that the communication comes from Complainant in an effort to confuse people, steal people's sensitive financial information and disrupt Complainant's business. 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 the domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii)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 as 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, through registrations with the USPTO, it has rights in the trademarks RELEVATE, Reg. No. 5,545,424 (International Class 35), registered on August 21, 2018 and RELEVATEHEALTH (& Design), Reg. No. 7,050,435 (International Class 35) registered on May 9, 2023. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to each of Complainant's marks, differing from the RELEVATE mark by the addition of the words "health" and "careers" and differing from the text of the RELEVATEHEALTH (& Design) mark by the addition of the word "careers". These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from either of Complainant's marks and instead evoke Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. 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 <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name was registered by Respondent in the name of one of Complainant's HR Specialists, using a privacy service, on October 19, 2024, many years after Complainant has shown that its RELEVATE mark had become very well-known. It resolves to Complainant's website at "www.relevatehealth.com". On October 20 and 21, 2024 emails were sent to a job applicant from <[name of one of Complainant's HR Specialists]@relevatehealthcareers.com> offering an online job interview at "Relevate Health". The second email attached a document headed on each page "relevatehealth®" purporting to describe the job. The footer of each page set out Complainant's genuine Ohio office address. The same name of Complainant's HR Specialist was described as "Interview Manager". On October 23, 2024, an email from the same email address attached an "official letter of appointment" with Complainant, seeking completion and return of enrollment materials, together with the job applicant's direct deposit and identification information. 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 <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name. 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 name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith 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 fully aware of Complainant's RELEVATE and RELEVATEHEALTH (and Design) marks, its website at "www.relevatehealth.com", and its domain name <relevatehealth.com> when Respondent registered the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name in bad faith for the purpose of phishing for personal and financial information by masquerading as an employee of Complainant. 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 <relevatehealthcareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. It is further Ordered that Forum may transmit Annex 1 to Complainant, Respondent and the Registrar but Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: December 3, 2024 [1] The Panel has redacted Respondent's name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an unredacted version of this Decision in order to enable the Registrar to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. The Panel has authorized FORUM to transmit Annex 1 to Complainant, Respondent and the Registrar as part of the Order in this proceeding and has indicated that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. 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.