Cernerheslth.com

The timeline behind cernerheslth.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.

DECISION Cerner Innovation Inc. v. li hou chang / wu xi wang lu dian zi shang wu you xian gong si Claim Number: FA2601002200294 PARTIES Complainant is Cerner Innovation Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is li hou chang / wu xi wang lu dian zi shang wu you xian gong si ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cernerheslth.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). 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 January 18, 2026; Forum received payment on January 18, 2026. On January 19, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cernerheslth.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 January 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2026 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@cernerheslth.com. Also on January 20, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On February 10, 2026, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language. Respondent's at-issue domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based and originating company. The at-issue domain name is comprised of Complainant's English language trademark and the intentionally misspelled generic English term "heslth." Additionally, the websites addressed by the at-issue domain name are in English. Complainant does not understand Chinese and operates its business primarily in English. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese. Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant Cerner Innovation Inc., created in Kansas City, Missouri in 1979, is the owner of the distinctive trademark CERNER. Long prior to the creation of the at-issue domain name, Complainant commenced the use of the CERNER mark for creating and providing information systems and applications for the health care industry, allowing them to better share and manage clinical and patient data across multiple disciplines and facilities. Cerner is used by practices, providers and healthcare organizations of all sizes and specialties, as well as patients. Cerner Health is a patient centric system, providing patients with one centralized place for all the information needed to manage their, and their family's, health. Today, Cerner solutions are used in more than 35 countries by approximately 694,000 physicians and more than 2.2 million caregivers and is one of the most prominent market leaders when it comes to healthcare digitization. As a result of Complainant's long usage and promotion of the CERNER trademark, it has become famous and widely recognized, especially in the healthcare industries. Complainant's CERNER mark is actively protected through registration and enforcement. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Respondent initially attracts searchers to its <cernerheslth.com> website by using an identical copy of Complainant's CERNER mark and adding an intentional misspelling of the word "health", merely replacing the "a" with the letter "s", making the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's CERNER mark, as well as using the ".com" extension, thereby making those who see the domain think that it is related to Complainant. People may be led to believe that the Complainant endorsed, sponsored or affiliated itself with any activities being conducted through the at-issue domain name. This is especially so where the misspelled word "health" directly relates to Complainant's business and is intentionally chosen to make the at-issue domain name resemble Complainant's official CernerHealth.com domain name. Finally, it is well accepted that the addition of the .com gTLD does nothing to alleviate confusion between the mark and the at-issue domain name since it merely serves a technical function and does not impact the substantive meaning of the domain's other words. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's actions regarding the domain name do not indicate a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i). Instead, Respondent's at-issue domain name directs users to a rotating series of third-party websites under a method that is sometimes known as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware" or ARRM. In this form of registration abuse, internet users are ultimately forwarded to a site that attempts to install malware on the user's computer. Subsequent entries of the domain name direct the user to different webpages. Respondent more than likely receives compensation from the various search engine and website owners who receive forwarded user traffic from the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or any variation thereof nor does Respondent own any trademarks in any relevant names. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name without intent for commercial gain, and so its actions do not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the CERNER mark in the domain name to confuse users into believing that the domain name is owned by, or affiliated with Complainant, when this is not the case. Respondent's use of the <cernerheslth.com> domain name tarnishes and dilutes Complainant's trademarks. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of activities carried out under its domain name. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's trademarks when it registered <cernerheslth.com> as a domain name. The <cernerheslth.com> domain name contains Complainant's CERNER trademark. The resolution of the at-issue domain name to various third-party pages and malware, also supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and uses the domain in bad faith. Respondent's use of the domain resulted in a commercial gain for others by forwarding visitors to third party websites. There is a mail exchange (MX) record associated with the domain name and Complainant asserts that this indicates Respondent's bad faith intent. When viewed against all of the circumstances of a given case, the configuration of MX records for a disputed domain name may indicate a probability that it will be used in connection with spam, phishing, or other activity that would be considered bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, Respondent is engaged in a pattern of bad faith domain registrations targeting Complainant's trademark. Respondent was the named respondent in at least two prior cases in which Respondent targeted Complainant's mark in bad faith in an identical manner as in this present case. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the CERNER mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its CERNER trademark. Respondent used the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant to facilitate the distribution of malware and commercially gain therefrom. 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 USPTO registration for CERNER is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). Respondent's <cernerheslth.com> domain name contains Complainant's CERNER mark followed by a recognizable misspelled/mistyped version of the suggestive word HEALTH, with all followed by the ".com" top level domain name. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CERNER HEALTH trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, 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). 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for <cernerheslth.com> ultimately serves to identify the domain name's registrant as "li hou chang" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <cernerheslth.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <cernerheslth.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). Respondent uses <cernerheslth.com> to direct internet users to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes known as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware." Internet users browsing to or otherwise engaging <cernerheslth.com> are redirected to a website(s) that attempts to install malware on the user's computer, and/or to third party webpages all for Respondent ultimate commercial benefit. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent's use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses "failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)"). Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <cernerheslth.com> domain name to invoke a function that directs users to various malware delivery websites on a rotating basis. The function also directs users to webpages of third-parties presumably all for Respondent's commercial benefit. Using the confusingly similar domain name in such manner illustrates Respondent's bad faith disruption of Complainant's business and Respondent's attempt to attract internet users for commercial under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users' devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also, Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Next, Complainant shows that Respondent has registered multiple domain names that are related to Complainant's trademark. Respondent's domain name registration activity thus suggests a pattern of domain abuse and indicates Respondent's bad faith in the instant proceeding pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's rights in the CERNER mark when Respondent registered <cernerheslth.com>as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's prior domain name abuse in UDRP proceedings where Respondent registered other domain names that were confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Respondent actual prior knowledge of Complainant's CERNER HEALTH trademark is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See 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 <cernerheslth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 10, 2026 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.