Sentara Health f/k/a/ Sentara Healthcare v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2024-1779

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sentara Health f/k/a/ Sentara Healthcare v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2024-1779

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sentara Health f/k/a/ Sentara Healthcare, United States of America (“United States”),

represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Name Redacted.[1]

[1]The Respondent appears to have used the name of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sentarahealths.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2024.

On April 29, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 2024, 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 (Domain Admin / Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April
30, 2024 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 amendment to the
Complaint on May 3, 2024.

page 2

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 the due date for Response was May 27, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 31, 2024.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2024. 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 operates a healthcare delivery system. It owns the mark SENTARA and enjoys the benefits of registration of several variations of that mark in the United States (e.g., Reg. No. 4,332,264, registered on May 7, 2013).

According to the WhoIs information, the disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2023. The
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with an active website. But the

Respondent has set up one or more email accounts using the disputed domain name to send and receive

messages, while seeking to impersonate the Complainant’s Chief Procurement Officer in communications

with third parties to engage in fraudulent conduct.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed

domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The standing (or threshold)

test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the

Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider

page 3

two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
SENTARA mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

The disputed domain name incorporates the SENTARA mark in its entirety with the term “healths”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s

SENTARA mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The SENTARA mark remains recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the SENTARA mark in any manner, (2) the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name, and (3) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send one or more email messages in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant and thereby engage in fraudulent conduct.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here claimed phishing activity, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the

balance in the Respondent’s favor.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being

used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s

bad faith registration and use.

The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent knew about and targeted the Complainant when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. This is apparent from the inclusion of the term

“healths” within the disputed domain name – a word that particularly relate to the services the Complainant

provides. Elara Caring v. Alicia Estus, WIPO Case No. D2023-1762. Using the disputed domain name to send email imitating the Complainant further supports that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. That shows bad faith registration. The fraudulent email use also supports a finding of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. This phishing activity is a clear

example of bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4; and Reckitt & Colman (Overseas)
Health Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / zaghdad mohamed amine, zaghdad, WIPO
Case No. D2020-1617.

page 4

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <sentarahealths.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/

Evan D. Brown

Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2024

potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1

to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST- 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.