Hackensackmeridianealth.org + 3 more domains

The timeline behind hackensackmeridianealth.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Candie Deloach / Excella Claim Number: FA2502002141519 PARTIES Complainant is Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah E Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Candie Deloach / Excella ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <hackensackmeridianealth.org>, <hackensackmeridianhalth.org>, <hackensackmeriianhealth.org> and <hacknsackmeridianhealth.org>, registered with Sav.com, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2025; Forum received payment on February 23, 2025. On February 24, 2025, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hackensackmeridianealth.org>, <hackensackmeridianhalth.org>, <hackensackmeriianhealth.org> and <hacknsackmeridianhealth.org> domain names are registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, 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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 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@hackensackmeridianealth.org, postmaster@hackensackmeridianhalth.org, postmaster@hackensackmeriianhealth.org, postmaster@hacknsackmeridianhealth.org. Also on February 27, 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 20, 2025, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant is an integrated network of healthcare providers that has changed how health care is delivered in the state of New Jersey and surrounding areas. Complainant claims rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,320 registered April 10, 2018). Complainant became the first hospital in the world to treat patients suffering from enlarged prostate with an artificial intelligence-powered robot that removes excess prostate tissue. As a result of such widespread, continuous, and prominent use, Complainant's marks have acquired significant goodwill and public recognition, as a means by which the public identifies Complainant's goods and services. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because they incorporate a misspelled version of Complainant's HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH trademark, merely adding the ".org" gTLD. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domains to resolve to a parked webpage with sponsored, click-through links, redirected to third-party websites. Respondent has chosen the disputed domain names to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill associated with Complainant's trademarks, misleadingly diverting Internet traffic away from Complainant's website and preventing Complainant from owning the disputed domain names. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent resolves the disputed domain names to a parked website, which provides links to Complainant's competitors. Respondent registered the disputed domain names for its own benefit and commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Respondent also has a pattern of registering well-known, third-party trademarks, thereby further demonstrating bad faith. The use of a typo-squatted domain names indicates, by its very nature, bad faith registration and use. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names also violates the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §43(d), et seq. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain names were registered on August 15, 2020. 2. Complainant has established rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,320 registered April 10, 2018). 3. The disputed domain names resolve to parking websites that host third-party links to Complainant's competitors, including "Online Doctor Appointment," "Medical Billing Program," "Healthcare Scheduling Software," "Electronic Medical Records," and "Online Doctor Consultation." 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 Complainant asserts rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,441,320, registered April 10, 2018). Registration of a mark with a trademark authority such as the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted evidence of its trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <hackensackmeridianealth.org>, <hackensackmeridianhalth.org>, <hackensackmeriianhealth.org>, and <hacknsackmeridianhealth.org> are confusingly similar to Complainant's HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark because they incorporate a misspelled version of the mark in its entirety, differing only by the removal of a single letter, while appending the ".org" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). The Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names omits a single letter from key elements of Complainant's trademark and corresponding domain name, as follows: <hackensackmeridianealth.org>: Missing 'H' from "HEALTH." <hackensackmeridianhalth.org>: Missing 'E' from "HEALTH." <hackensackmeriianhealth.org>: Missing 'D' from "MERIDIAN." <hacknsackmeridianhealth.org>: Missing 'E' from "HACKENSACK." The Panel finds that such minor typographical alterations do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant's mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1714218 (Forum Mar. 1, 2017) (finding that one-letter misspellings of target.com were likely to cause confusion, and noting that "similar changes have not been found distinguishing by past Forum panels"); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, section 1.10 ("A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Candie Deloach / Excella" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to parking websites that host third-party links to Complainant's competitors. Such use is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Administrator, FA 1998681 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("Respondent has previously used the disputed domain name as a parking website which hosts third-party links to competitors of Complainant. Such a use is generally not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages for the disputed domain names, displaying third-party links such as "Online Doctor Appointment," "Medical Billing Program," "Healthcare Scheduling Software," "Electronic Medical Records," and "Online Doctor Consultation." Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names resolve to webpages hosting third-party advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors. Hosting hyperlinks that compete with a complainant may serve as evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Administrator, FA 1998681 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("Hosting hyperlinks that compete with a complainant may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). The Panel recalls that Complainant has submitted screenshots of the resolving websites for the disputed domain names, which display links to third-party websites offering healthcare services related to Complainant's services. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities misdirect Internet users seeking Complainant to Complainant's competitors, thereby disrupting Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering well-known third-party trademarks, further demonstrating bad faith. Complainant has shown that Respondent has registered typosquatted versions of Complainant's marks in seven prior cases. Additionally, Complainant notes that a search of the Forum's domain name dispute proceedings and decisions database identified three additional cases involving Respondent. The Panel further observes that, in the present case, Respondent has registered four typosquatted versions of Complainant's marks. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is generally sufficient to establish bad faith and may be inferred from Respondent's incorporation of a registered or well-known mark into a disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant."). The Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant's mark in its entirety, differing only by the omission of a single letter, while the resolving websites contain links to third-party websites offering healthcare services related to Complainant's services. Given the fame of Complainant's mark and the manner in which the disputed domain names are used, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <hackensackmeridianealth.org>, <hackensackmeridianhalth.org>, <hackensackmeriianhealth.org> and <hacknsackmeridianhealth.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 20, 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.