Webmd.ai

The timeline behind webmd.ai

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 WebMD, LLC v. Mr Gwoply Claim Number: FA2601002202064 PARTIES Complainant is WebMD, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Nicholas B. Boroski of Rutan & Tucker LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mr Gwoply ("Respondent"), Anguilla. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <webmd.ai>, registered with Zenaida AXA. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Francine Siew Ling Tan as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2026; Forum received payment on January 27, 2026. On January 30, 2026, Zenaida AXA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <webmd.ai> domain name is registered with Zenaida AXA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Zenaida AXA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Zenaida AXA 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 19, 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@webmd.ai. Also on January 30, 2026, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 18, 2026. An additional submission in reply to Respondent's Response was filed by Complainant on February 20, 2026 (the "Supplemental Filing"). An additional response was filed by Respondent on February 21, 2026 (the "Additional Response"). On February 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Francine Siew Ling Tan as Panelist. On February 23, 2026, the Panel issued an Order for Additional Submissions, requesting Complainant to provide clarification on a couple of statements within a paragraph within the Amended Complaint. On February 26, 2026, Complainant filed a Second Amended Complaint. 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a global leader in digital media, marketing services, and online health services. It has been using the WebMD trade mark (the "WEBMD Mark") in connection with providing medical information in the U.S. since 1998, including providing and promoting its services via the website www.webmd.com. Complainant's WEBMD Mark is associated with a leading source for online health information and is one of the most popular consumer-oriented health sites in the U.S. Its website is consistently accredited by the oversight organization URAC as providing high quality information and disclosures. In 2017, Complainant was acquired by a private equity firm in a sale worth USD2.8 billion. Complainant remains a surviving entity operating its business as a subsidiary of the private equity firm. This transaction demonstrates the value of Complainant. Complainant's revenue in 2024 alone was USD636 million. Complainant's <webmd.com> website attracts a massive audience, with approximately 75 million-130 million unique visitors per month. Complainant's WEBMD Mark is widely recognizable as representing Complainant's global brand and goodwill. Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark WEBMD (U.S. Registration Nos. 3,477,973, registered on July 29, 2008; 2,394,818, registered on October 17, 2000; and 2,349,285, registered on May 16, 2000). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WEBMD Mark. It incorporates Complainant's WEBMD Mark in its entirety. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the term, nor any similar names, as demonstrated by the lack of active use of the disputed domain name and it being advertised as a for-sale domain. Respondent is not an authorized provider of Complainant's services, nor has he been licensed or permitted to use Complainant's trademarks, in particular, its WEBMD Mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business and to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other online location to purchase the domain name or access pay-per-click links by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service. Even if there were any active use of the disputed domain name, such use is not a legitimate bona fide offering of goods and services; the disputed domain name was used to merely resolve to other domains which are fraudulent in nature and invited users to download malware onto their computers by way of fake sale pages, hidden malware buttons, and fake McAfee system warnings. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page with an option to initiate discussions concerning the purchase of the domain name. Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and registered it for fraudulent purposes and/or to sell it for a profit. The registration was made to pre-empt Complainant from registering its well-known brand for Complainant's own use in the AI space. B. Respondent Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's WEBMD Mark. However, Complainant has not met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered on February 18, 2018, as part of a broader portfolio of .ai domain names. Complainant was not being targeted, nor was Complainant being impersonated or its business interfered with. The disputed domain name resolved to standard marketplace parking pages and was publicly listed for sale at USD19,999. The listing price was set prior to the filing of the Complaint. Respondent did not contact Complainant for the purpose of attempting to sell the domain name. The existence of a well-known mark does not automatically render any identical domain name registration to have been made in bad faith where there is no evidence of targeting conduct. The disputed domain name has not been used by Respondent to distribute malicious software. Respondent participated in in this proceeding, responded to communications, and attempted to explore settlement prior to filing its Response. Such conduct is inconsistent with bad faith. C. Additional Submissions Complainant asserted the following in its Supplemental Filing: (a) Respondent had offered by email on January 31, 2026 to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for USD19,999 on a "without prejudice" basis, to resolve the matter amicably and to avoid the time and expense of a contested UDRP proceeding. Complainant's representative responded on February 2, 2026 to ask for receipts of the domain name registration and renewal costs, and other evidence of costs constituting the requested settlement amount. Respondent stated that this price was listed on a neutral marketplace at that price and is not intended to reflect registration or renewal costs but rather the established portfolio listing value of the domain. (b) The value of the disputed domain name is derived from it being a trademark, namely Complainant's trademark. To claim that a "public listing price" is the start of negotiations for which Respondent invites a counterproposal is textbook cybersquatting. The price asked for by Respondent demonstrates the inherent value of Complainant's WEBMD brand. (c) Respondent admits that it is seeking a price above its out-of-pocket expenses which it recognizes as minimal. (d) Investing in generic or purely descriptive domain names for resale is a legitimate business activity but, in this case, Complainant's WEBMD Mark is a unique, distinctive, non-descriptive and non-generic brand. It is clear Respondent targeted the disputed domain name based on its value attributable to the WEBMD Mark. (e) Respondent has an obligation under the Policy to ensure that the domain name registered does not infringe or violate third-party rights. A simple Google search would have revealed Complainant's rights in the WEBTM Mark, which it has used since 1998. D. Additional Submissions Respondent asserted the following in its Additional Response: (a) The settlement communication made after service of the Complaint and in response to the proceeding do not, standing alone, establish bad faith registration under the Policy. The relevant inquiry is Respondent's intention at the time of registration. (b) Respondent did not contact Complainant prior to the dispute and did not impersonate Complainant or use the domain in connection with Complainant's services. (c) The Policy does not impose strict liability for registering a domain name identical to a registered mark. FINDINGS (a) The disputed domain name is identical to the WEBMD Mark in which Complainant has rights. (b) Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name. (c) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 10(a), (b) and (c) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules"; "ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case; and "ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition". Applying these principles, the Panel is prepared to and has considered the Supplemental Filing and Additional Response. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar In this instance, Respondent has conceded that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's WEBMD Mark. The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's WEBMD Mark and does not consider it necessary to enter into a detailed discussion in relation to the first element of Policy ¶ 4(a). Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has therefore been established. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has asserted that Complainant has not met its burden to show Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. However, it is a well-established principle that: "[a]lthough the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of 'proving a negative', requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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". (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 2.1.) The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; Complainant has not authorized Respondent's use of its WEBMD trademark and the registration of a domain name containing said trade mark; and there is no evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. (Policy ¶ 4(c).) Accordingly, the burden of production of the existence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to Respondent. Policy ¶ 4(c) sets out examples of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: "(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue". None of these have been demonstrated by Respondent, nor have any other facts, circumstances, or documentary evidence been introduced into evidence by Respondent to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel notes that in the email to Complainant, Respondent did not claim that he had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name but in fact "recogniz[ed] Complainant's interest in securing the domain". Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has therefore been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(b) sets out examples of circumstances, if found to by the Panel to be present, to constitute evidence of the registration and use of domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The Panel is persuaded in this case and following the finding of Respondent's absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The policy aim of the UDRP is to address situations where a registrant of a domain name takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant's trademark, thereby preventing the practice of cybersquatting. The Panel finds that the circumstances of this case fall within the ambit of what is set out in Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), i.e. the circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, or otherwise transferring the domain name to Complainant who is the owner of the WEBMD Mark, or a competitor, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. It is highly implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's WEBMD Mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Respondent did not in his Response or email communications deny knowledge of Complainant and its WEBMD Mark, and of its fame. The Panel notes that in its Response, Respondent appears to admit that Complainant's WEBMD Mark is well known but merely argues that "the existence of a well-known mark does not automatically render any identical domain name registration bad faith where there is no evidence of targeting conduct". Respondent claimed that the disputed domain name was registered and held as part of a broader portfolio of .ai domain names. Assuming that to be true, even as a domainer, Respondent has an affirmative obligation to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent undertook good faith efforts to check against readily-available online databases to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.3. The Panel finds that the circumstances do indicate that the primary purpose of the domain name registration, which was secured about 8 years ago, was to sell or transfer the domain name to Complainant or a competitor. The domain name comprises the WEBMD Mark which is distinctive, widely known, and corresponds uniquely to Complainant. The brand value of Complainant's WEBMD Mark is demonstrated by the acquisition price of 2017. Respondent has failed to show he has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and failed to provide a credible explanation for his choice of the domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The sale landing page to which the disputed domain name resolves is another indicator of commercial resale intent, to profit from the trademark. The fact that the offer to sell was made after the Complaint was filed does not preclude it from consideration by panelists in evaluating the overall circumstances and weighing the evidence, particularly in this case where Respondent had a pre-Complaint sale landing page and initiated the outreach to Complaint. Respondent has asserted that Complainant was not being targeted. Targeting is not confined to targeting a complainant in the manner or impersonation or passing off as the genuine brand owner or source of goods/services. One may also target the value of the brand or trademark of a brand owner. While there is no evidence that the disputed domain name was being used for a website which impersonates Complainant or for passing-off purposes, the Panel finds that Respondent no less targeted Complainant for the value attributable to the WEBMD Mark. The Panel is skeptical, where the domain name at issue is identical to a distinctive and famous mark, that the domain name was merely registered for legitimate speculation (based, for example, on any claimed dictionary meaning) as opposed to targeting a specific brand owner. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1. Considering the circumstances in totality, including Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, Respondent's likely knowledge of Complainant's rights, the distinctiveness and fame of Complainant's registered trademark, and failure of Respondent to present a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1), the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has therefore been established. 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 <webmd.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. FRANCINE TAN, Panelist Dated: February 27, 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.