Cardlnalhealths.com

The timeline behind cardlnalhealths.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 Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. James English Claim Number: FA2506002158697 PARTIES Complainant is Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is James English ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cardlnalhealths.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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 June 2, 2025; Forum received payment on June 2, 2025. On June 3, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cardlnalhealths.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 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@cardlnalhealths.com. Also on June 3, 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 June 24, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant has been engaged in the provision of medical products, pharmaceuticals, healthcare items, and retail pharmacy services under the mark CARDINAL HEALTH for nearly four decades, during which time the mark has been used exclusively and continuously in commerce since 1987. Complainant holds rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,249,206, registered June 1, 1999). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it wholly incorporates Complainant's mark, with the only differences being the substitution of an "l" in place of the "i" in the term "CARDINAL," the addition of an "s" at the end, and the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD. ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has not been granted any authorization to use Complainant's marks. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the domain name being used for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using email addresses associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in order to fraudulently phish for personal and financial information. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has failed to discharge its contractual obligation to ensure that the disputed domain name does not infringe upon the rights of a third party. The disputed domain name is being used to facilitate a phishing scheme. In particular, Respondent is using email addresses linked to the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of Complainant, or someone otherwise affiliated with Complainant, in order to fraudulently obtain financial information from unsuspecting third parties. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. It is well established that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 1, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,249,206, registered June 1, 1999). 3. Respondent has used the disputed domain name, along with associated email addresses, in furtherance of fraudulent schemes involving impersonation of personnel affiliated with Complainant, apparently for the purpose of procuring personal and financial information. 4. The disputed domain name currently redirects to an inactive webpage. 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 CARDINAL HEALTH mark through its registration with the USPTO, e.g., Reg. No. 2,249,206, registered June 1, 1999. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is typically considered valid evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted proof of its trademark registration, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <cardlnalhealths.com>, is confusingly similar to its CARDINAL HEALTH mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the only differences being the substitution of an "l" in place of the "i" in the term "CARDINAL," the addition of an "s" at the end, and the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD. The Panel finds that swapping, replacing, or omitting a single letter and the mere addition of a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), see Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2005830 (Forum Aug. 31, 2022) ("finding <chevcon.com> similar to the CHEVRON mark because the registration of a domain name that substitutes one letter for another in a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARDINAL 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 name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name 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 name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "James English" 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 name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead impersonates Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is inherently deceptive and fundamentally incompatible with any claim to rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, see Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) ("finding that a respondent's attempt to impersonate a complainant via emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and thus the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name"). Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name either to impersonate Complainant for purposes of phishing or is otherwise not using, and has not used, the disputed domain name in connection with an active website. Complainant provides examples of fraudulent emails showing that Respondent is contacting third-party vendors using the disputed domain name, presumably to deceive such third parties into falsely believing that the communications originate from, or are authorized by, Complainant, and to solicit financial information. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and to facilitate a fraudulent phishing scheme by employing email addresses comprising the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case against Respondent. Each of the foregoing factors supports this conclusion. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or to provide any evidence to rebut Complainant's prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. The use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith where it disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or seeks to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(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)"). As previously noted, Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that Respondent is using the disputed domain name either to impersonate Complainant for purposes of phishing or is otherwise not using, and has not used, the disputed domain name in connection with an active website. Complainant provides examples of fraudulent emails showing that Respondent is contacting third-party vendors using the disputed domain name, presumably to deceive such third parties into falsely believing that the communications originate from, or are authorized by, Complainant, and to solicit financial information. These emails give the false appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant, thereby collecting sensitive personal and financial information. The Panel notes that Respondent's conduct, by leveraging the goodwill associated with Complainant and Complainant's marks, disrupts Complainant's business and is intended to derive commercial benefit. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the CARDINAL HEALTH mark in light of the overall fame of Complainant's mark. The Panel notes that Complainant is one of the world's largest healthcare services companies and has used the CARDINAL HEALTH mark in connection with such services and related goods since at least as early as 1987. Complainant has invested substantial sums in developing and marketing the CARDINAL HEALTH mark, which has been and continues to be widely used and publicized through advertising throughout the United States and other countries and territories around the world. As a result, consumers have come to associate the CARDINAL HEALTH mark exclusively with Complainant's high-quality services and products. In view of the widespread recognition of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark and the specific nature of Respondent's impersonation, namely, impersonating a Complainant employee to fraudulently acquire products, the Panel infers that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, which supports a finding of bad faith registration 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 <cardlnalhealths.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: June 25, 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.