24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang) - WIPO Case No. D2022-2643

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v. 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang)

Case No. D2022-2643

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 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang), China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <beightstarcare.com>, <brghtstarcare.com>, <brighrstarcare.com>,
<brightatarcare.com>, <brightsatrcare.com>, <brightstarcaare.com>, <brightstarcsre.com>,
<brightstarvare.com>, <brightstracare.com>, <brughtstarcare.com>, and <nrightstarcare.com> are registered

with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was originally filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”)
on July 20, 2022 involving 51 domain names. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the
Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 22,
2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and
contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact
information in the Complaint. On the same day, the Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant, 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 in
English on July 27, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, the Center also transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On July 27, 2022, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 1, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 21, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 22, 2022.

40 domain names were withdrawn from this dispute on September 20, 2022, at the request of the
Complainant, as they had expired during this proceeding.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 2022. 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

The Complainant provides medical staffing and related assistance services. It holds multiple trademark registrations for BRIGHTSTAR CARE, including the following:

-	United States trademark registration number 3,608,701, registered on April 21, 2009,…

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 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang)

Details

AGLC: 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang) WIPO Case No. D2022-2643
Case: WIPO Case No. D2022-2643
Decision Date: 08-10-2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of 24-7 Bright Star Healthcare, LLC v 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang) involved a dispute over multiple domain names that were found to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, BRIGHTSTAR CARE. The Respondent, an individual from China, registered numerous domain names that were minor misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark. These domain names resolved to landing pages displaying pay-per-click links for various home care services. The dispute was brought before an administrative panel under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The legal issues for the panel to decide were whether the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, whether the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and whether the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant argued that the domain names were confusingly similar, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in them, and that they were registered and used in bad faith, citing typosquatting as evidence.

The panel found that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, despite being minor misspellings. It also found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, as they were used to display pay-per-click links for commercial gain, without the Complainant’s permission. Furthermore, the panel concluded that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith, as the Respondent registered them with the intent to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.

This case highlights the importance of trademark protection in the digital space, particularly in the context of domain names that are confusingly similar to established trademarks. The decision reinforces the principles of the UDRP in addressing bad faith registration and use of domain names that are likely to confuse consumers.

Orders