Healthdimensiongroup.com

The timeline behind healthdimensiongroup.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 Health Dimensions Consulting, Inc. v. Derek Blata Claim Number: FA2502002140642 PARTIES Complainant is Health Dimensions Consulting, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael Bondi of Spencer Fane LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Derek Blata ("Respondent"), Minnesota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <healthdimensiongroup.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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2025; Forum received payment on February 18, 2025. On February 18, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <healthdimensiongroup.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 February 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@healthdimensiongroup.com. Also on February 19, 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 March 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of financial advisory and consultancy services in forming and operating senior care facilities and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 2000. 2.The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 6,757,576, registered on June 14, 2022 and other trademarks for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP (collectively "the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3.The HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain name <healthdimensionsgroup.com> that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.healthdimensionsgroup.com where it markets its products under the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark and brand. 5.The Respondent registered the <healthdimensiongroup.com> domain name on February 10, 2025 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights. 6.The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark with the deletion of the final letter "S" of "DIMENSIONS" making it a singular version of that word and adding the generic Top Level Domain ".com". 7.The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark. 8.The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because: (a) Respondent used Complainant's mailing address when registering the domain name; (b) Respondent has used the domain name to send false and misleading emails to persons potentially looking for jobs with the Complainant, using a signature that includes the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark along with Complainant's address and a link to Complainant's website; (c) the emails request that the persons receiving the email provide personal information; (d) Respondent has been using the domain name in a manner calculated to mislead internet users into believing Respondent's website is associated and affiliated with Complainant, which it is not; (e) Respondent registered the <healthdimensiongroup.com> domain name after Complainant obtained the trademark registration for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP; and (f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a domain parking page and the failure to make active use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); and (b) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of financial advisory and consultancy services in forming and operating senior care facilities and related goods and services and has been so engaged since at least 2000. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 6,757,576, registered on June 14, 2022 and other trademarks for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP (collectively "the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the <healthdimensiongroup.com> domain name on February 10, 2025 ("the disputed domain name"). 4. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website, infringe Complainant's trademark, mislead potential job applicants to positions in the employment of the Complainant, pass itself off as the Complainant, disrupt the Complainant's business and generate confusion. 5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 6. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The Complainant has established that it provides its goods and service under the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark by virtue of its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registered Number 6,757,576, registered on June 14, 2022 and other trademarks for HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP (collectively "the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. The aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order. The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark with the deletion of the final letter "S" of "DIMENSIONS" making it a singular version of that word and adding the generic Top Level Domain ".com". It is well established that the addition and deletion of single letters and other minor alterations to a trademark used in a domain name cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity that is present on the evidence as it is in the present case, in view of the dominant effect of the trademark being included in the domain name. Also, when a domain name includes a trademark, as in the present case, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. In the present case it is obviously so. Thus, internet users would read the domain name as invoking the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark and as being associated with the provision of the Complainant's goods and services under the trademark. The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in making the comparison, because all domain names must have such an extension. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish under the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely: (a) the evidence shows that the Respondent has used Complainant's mailing address when registering the domain name; this shows that the Respondent did not have the right to register the domain name or the right to mislead anyone who saw the registration to conclude, as they would conclude, that it was a domain name of the Complainant or one registered by the Complainant with its permission; the evidence also shows a generally misleading intent on the part of the Respondent and that it knew of the Complainant at the time of the registration; (b) Respondent has used the domain name to send false and misleading emails to persons looking for jobs with the Complainant, using a signature that includes the HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP trademark along with the Complainant's address and a link to the Complainant's website; this is shown by Exhibit 4 which the Panel has examined and found that indeed it seeks to encourage an individual on false grounds to progress with an application for a position with the Complainant; (c) it is also clear from the email that it requests that the person receiving it should provide personal information; (d) it is also clear from the email that the Respondent has used the domain name in a manner calculated to mislead the recipient into believing Respondent's website is associated and affiliated with the Complainant, which it is not and that accordingly the request for information from a potential job applicant is deceptive; (e) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant obtained the trademark registration for its HEALTH DIMENSIONS GROUP; thus, the trademark rights were established before the Respondent conceived its plan to mislead potential job applicants and more generally to present its misleading communications as a genuine communication on behalf of the Complainant; and (f) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; thus, on the known facts, the Respondent could not argue that it had used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that it has used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), or that the domain name was registered or used with any sort of permission or consent from the Complainant. The Complainant has therefore made out a persuasive case for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default and has thus not rebutted the prima facie case against it. The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith on the ground that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a domain parking page and the failure to make active use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The evidence is consistent with that, and it is true that it establishes bad faith registration and use and has been recognized as such by prior UDRP panels. For its part, the Panel has formed a clear view that the Respondent has passed itself off as the Complainant, used the domain name to mislead potential job applicants, sought to disrupt the Complainant's business and generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and that it has acted in bad faith in both the registration and use of the disputed domain name within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of 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 <healthdimensiongroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: March 13, 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.