Cardinlahealth.com

The timeline behind cardinlahealth.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 Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. CGS Pharma / CGS Investments Pty Ltd Claim Number: FA2606002224933 PARTIES Complainant is Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is CGS Pharma / CGS Investments Pty Ltd ("Respondent"), Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cardinlahealth.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026. On June 3, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cardinlahealth.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 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@cardinlahealth.com. Also on June 4, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 25, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: The Respondent's At-issue domain name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademarks in which Complainant Has Rights. Complainant Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC owns multiple registrations in the United States and around the world for the mark CARDINAL HEALTH. The at-issue domain name <cardinlahealth.com> is clear typosquatting of the CARDINAL HEALTH mark. The only differences between the domain name and the CARDINAL HEALTH mark are (i) that the Respondent has transposed the letters "a" and "l" in the term "CARDINAL" in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark and (ii) the addition of the gTLD ".com." The term "cardinal" and the misspelled "cardinla" are highly visually similar and could easily be confused for one another. As a result, unsuspecting customers are unlikely to perceive the at-issue domain name as distinguishable from Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark. It is an accepted principle that an established gTLD like .com is not a distinguishing factor. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent does not own any trademark or service mark rights or registrations that are identical, similar, or in any way related to the at-issue domain name. No content displayed in the Whois record for the at-issue domain name indicates that Respondent claims to be named or is commonly known by the business name "Cardinla Health" or the at-issue domain name. Accordingly, Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not now, and has never been, licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its CARDINAL HEALTH mark or any marks that are confusingly similar to it, or to register or use any domain names incorporating its marks. Respondent thus lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to send fraudulent communications, impersonating an actual employee of Complainant as part of a phishing scheme, to solicit payments and money from Complainant's customers. The use of a domain name to fraudulently phish for personal and/or financial information is sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name. The at-issue domain name is used with an inactive website. The "inactive holding" of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name either to impersonate Complainant for purposes of phishing or is otherwise not using, and has not used, the at-issue domain name in connection with an active website. Neither use constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. The sole purpose of the Respondent's domain name is to falsely convey that the domain name is associated with Complainant. Respondent was and is aware of, and attempting to profit from, Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark in bad faith, as Respondent is holding itself out as Complainant and Complainant's personnel or as having an affiliation with Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark and brand, when no such affiliation exists. The At-Issue Domain Name Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Respondent has attempted to obtain bad faith commercial gain or other benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant as part of a fraudulent scheme to extract money and financial information from Complainant's customers and is not offering any legitimate products or services. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of another's trademark is evidence of bad faith. Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark is well-known and widely advertised in the United States and other countries around the world. Complainant had made extensive use of the mark prior to Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name. It can be inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark because (i) the at-issue domain name is virtually identical to the CARDINAL HEALTH mark; (ii) Respondent registered the at-issue domain name many years after Complainant first began using the mark, many years after Complainant obtained its federal registrations for the mark in the U.S and other countries around the world, and many years after the registrations became incontestable; and (iii) Respondent held itself out as Complainant in fraudulent communications, including through the use of email posing as an actual employee of Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by registering and using a domain name that takes advantage of a typo in Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH mark and domain. The at-issue domain name is identical to Complainant's mark but for switching the letters "a" and "l" in the term "Cardinal" in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark. Such typosquatting of Complainant's mark is further evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Next, the at-issue domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. It has been well established by the Panel that "passive holding" of a domain name can constitute bad faith use under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii). In this case, there has been no indication that the at-issue domain name is to be used with any actual or good faith use of the domain name and it is evident that Respondent has had notice of Complainant's rights in Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Additionally, Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that a domain name registrant represent and warrant to the domain name registrar that to the registrant's knowledge, "the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party." In the same paragraph, the registrant is charged with the responsibility to "determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights." In proceeding to register the at-issue domain name, Respondent has failed to discharge its contractual obligation to determine that the at-issue domain name does not infringe the rights of a third party. Most importantly, the at-issue domain name is clearly used in bad faith when the Respondent uses the domain name to send emails impersonating the Complainant for fraudulent purposes, as is the case here. Respondent has already attempted to profit commercially from ownership of the at-issue domain name by using the same as part of a phishing scheme designed to induce Complainant's customers and solicit sensitive monetary information and monetary payments, even using the name of an actual employee of Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the CARDINAL HEALTH mark. Respondent has no trademark rights in CARDINAL HEALTH and is no way authorized to use Complainant's trademarks. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in CARDINAL HEALTH. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email to pose as Complainant and perpetrate fraud. 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 3.1 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 shows that it has USPTO registrations for CARDINAL HEALTH. Any of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO."). Respondent's <cardinlahealth.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled/mistyped version of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark less its domain name impermissible space, where the mark's second letter "a" and adjacent letter "l" are transposed. The domain name concludes with the ".com" top level which is irrelevant to confusingly similar analysis. 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 CARDINAL 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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. 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 legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <cardinlahealth.com> supports a finding that the domain name's registrant is "CGS Pharma / CGS Investments Pty Ltd" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <cardinlahealth.com> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name) Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email to help create the illusion that the domain name and email from such domain originated from Complainant. Respondent's use of <cardinlahealth.com> to facilitate Respondent posing as Complainant via email is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be 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)). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <cardinlahealth.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent capitalized on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark by sending email hosted by <cardinlahealth.com> designed to impersonate Complainant's actual employee and solicit payments and money from Complainant's customers. Indeed, Respondent's bogus email might ultimately be used to support one or more of a variety of schemes benefiting Respondent dependent on tricking a third party into falsely believing he or she is dealing with Complainant. The fact that Respondent engaged in identity theft and email fraud using the <cardinlahealth.com> domain name unmistakably demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <cardinlahealth.com> domain name. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the at-issue domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the malformed string in a domain name hoping that internet users will accidently type such string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or as in the instant dispute, that some internet users will misread the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with the domain name's target trademark. Respondent's intentional misspelling of CARDINAL HEALTH within Respondent's <cardinlahealth.com> domain name is indicative of Respondent's desire to use the domain name to unacceptably exploit Complainant's trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in CARDINAL HEALTH when it registered <cardinlahealth.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's CARDINAL HEALTH trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark; from Respondent's inclusion of an overt misspelling of Complainant's mark in the domain name; and from Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name pose as Complainant's via email. Respondent's registration and use of <cardinlahealth.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in CARDINAL HEALTH further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use. 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); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION 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 <cardinlahealth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: June 25, 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.