Iuhealthprotontherapy.org

The timeline behind iuhealthprotontherapy.org

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 Indiana University Health, Inc. v. Aureila Hmelicka Claim Number: FA2502002138241 PARTIES Complainant is Indiana University Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John D. Lovi of Blackstone Law Group LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Aureila Hmelicka ("Respondent"), Latvia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <iuhealthprotontherapy.org>, registered with Spaceship, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 2, 2025; Forum received payment on February 2, 2025. On February 4, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 February 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 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@iuhealthprotontherapy.org. Also on February 5, 2025, 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 February 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 Complainant contends in part as follows: Established in 1997, Complainant Indiana University Health is the largest and most comprehensive healthcare system in Indiana, with 16 hospitals under its IU Health brand and almost 36,000 employees. Complainant holds USPTO registrations for its IU HEALTH trademark. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Respondent's domain name incorporates the totality of Complainant's protected IU HEALTH mark changed by adding the relevant generic string "protontherapy," and further adding the non-distinguishing ".org" gTLD. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name at issue. The at-issue domain name's registration information is hidden behind a privacy proxy. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the domain name, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the domain resolves to a fraudulent IU Health website. Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect to the at-issue domain name by providing evidence of trademark registration long before Respondent registered its at-issue domain name. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent's use of <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> to pass itself off as Complainant to profit from Complainant's name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use. Respondent's use of Complainant's logo demonstrates actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration which is often recognized as evidence of bad faith registration. Further, the possible replication of IU Health's domain may be used for phishing activity against patient credentials among other possible malicious activities. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the IU HEALTH mark. Respondent has not been authorized to use any of Complainant's trademarks. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in IU HEALTH. Respondent uses <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> to address a website made to look like it might be endorsed by Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's registration of IU HEALTH with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority). Respondent's <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name consists of Complainant's IU HEALTH trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the suggestive term or terms "protontherapy" with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".org" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> fail to distinguish the Complainant's trademark from Respondent's domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name is confusingly similar to a mark, here IU HEALTH, in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> ultimately identifies the domain name's registrant of as "Aureila Hmelicka" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <iuhealthprotontherapy.org>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it might be sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. There, Complainant's logo is prominently displayed along with images related to Complainant's trademark and references to Complainant's IU HEALTH mark. Respondent thus attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant and cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its website are somehow endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of the <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <iuhealthprotontherapy.org>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it may be endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might then, or sometime in the future, capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name and Complainant's IU HEALTH trademark. Respondent's use of <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the IU HEALTH mark when it registered <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is obvious given Complainant's prominence in the healthcare industry and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's logo and trademark and posing as if it is endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in IU HEALTH further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <iuhealthprotontherapy.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 26, 2025 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.