24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio - WIPO Case No. D2023-1885

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio
Electronico

Case No. D2023-1885

1. The Parties

The Complainant is 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <brightstascare.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2023[1]. On April 27, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 28, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 8, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 9, 2023.

[1] The Complaint was originally filed involving three domain names, the other domain names were removed from the proceeding

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 11, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on June 21, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on June 23, 2023. The Panel
finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant, through its licensees and franchisees, offers medical and nursing personnel placement, recruiting and staffing, and other related services, through more than 340 independently owned and operated locations.

The Complainant has registered various trademarks consisting of or including BRIGHTSTAR CARE, such as
the United States trademark registration for BRIGHTSTAR CARE (word), registered under No. 4042547 as
of October 18, 2011. The Complainant is the registrant owner of the domain name <brightstarcare.com>
used as the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 4, 2023 and at the date of filing the Complaint, it resolved to a parking…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v Carolina Rodrigues, Funda...

Details

AGLC: 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio WIPO Case No. D2023-1885
Case: WIPO Case No. D2023-1885
Decision Date: 07-07-2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC and Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico concerns the disputed domain name <brightstascare.com>, which was registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. The Complainant filed the Complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on April 26, 2023, alleging that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BRIGHTSTAR CARE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complaint.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, whether the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and whether the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The court examined the Complainant's evidence of its rights in the BRIGHTSTAR CARE trademark and found that the disputed domain name was a typosquatted version of the trademark, which was confusingly similar to it. The court also considered the Respondent's use of the domain name, which resolved to a parking page with pay-per-click links to third-party service offerings and was later linked to various websites, including a lottery and gambling website or to a Chrome web store. The court found that the Respondent had no legitimate reason to acquire and use the disputed domain name and that its use of the domain name was intended to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's BRIGHTSTAR CARE trademark.

The court found that the Complainant had satisfied all three elements of the Policy and ordered that the disputed domain name <brightstascare.com> be transferred to the Complainant. The court noted that the Respondent had a history of abusive registrations and had failed to rebut the Complainant's contentions. The decision was issued on July 7, 2023, and the disputed domain name was transferred to the Complainant.

Orders