Signify Health, LLC v Sasha still

WIPO Case No. D2023-1208

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Signify Health, LLC v. Sasha still

Case No. D2023-1208

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Signify Health, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Hitchcock Evert LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Sasha still, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <signifyhealth.work> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2023.

On March 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March
22, 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

March 22, 2023.

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 March 23, 2023. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 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

The Complainant is a publicly traded company in the business of providing in-home, technology-enabled healthcare services. It owns the trademark SIGNIFY HEALTH, for which it enjoys the benefit of registration (see United States Reg. No. 6,097,023, registered on July 7, 2020). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2023. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email messages while impersonating an employee of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, at least one person has fallen victim to this nefarious scheme, by providing bank details to an email address that was established using the disputed domain name. The Complainant has also provided evidence that on March 6, 2023, the disputed domain name resolved to

Complainant’s own website.

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 reply 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 element requires the Panel to consider 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. This element under the Policy 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.

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
SIGNIFY HEALTH mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

The disputed domain name incorporates the SIGNIFY HEALTH mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

page 3

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).

On this point, the Complainant principally asserts that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is it using the disputed domain name to make a

bona fide offer of goods or services. To the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use is

purely commercial and intended to be used for social engineering attacks to wreak havoc on unwitting
victims through criminal fraud.

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

In the circumstances of this case, particularly where it has been shown that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant, it is clear that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. Such a showing is sufficient here to establish bad faith

registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the

disputed domain name to send a fraudulent email messages. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the

Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element.

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 <signifyhealth.work> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/

Evan D. Brown

Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2023