FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The disputed Domain Name was registered on the 19 of July 2015. The Complainant’s UK Trademark was filed on the 17 of July 2015.<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s corporate group owns the website ‘www.doctorsexpress.ky’, and uses it for selling services under the trademark “DOCTORS EXPRESS”.<\/p>\n
The disputed Domain Name was registered on the 19 of July 2015.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1. THE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO COMPLAINANT’S TRADEMARK<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s Trademarks are identical to the disputed Domain Name. This is because the Complainant’s Trademarks consist of two elements, namely, (i) “DOCTORS” and (ii) “EXPRESS”. The disputed Domain Name also includes the same two elements. Actually, the only difference between the Complainant’s.<\/p>\n
Trademark and the disputed Domain Name is one dot (“.”).<\/p>\n
However, the aforementioned dot is used in all domain names with the aim to divide second-level domain names from top-level domain names. Since there is no domain name without a dot, the dot should not be taken into account for the purposes of the UDRP when assessing the confusingly similarity between the Complainant’s Trademarks and the disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Name because the following circumstances specified in Section 4(c) of the Policy are not present:<\/p>\n
First Group of Circumstances Indicating Rights or Legitimate Interests: “before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”.<\/p>\n
The disputed Domain Name has not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It refers to a webpage showing the following error page: “Error. Page cannot be displayed. Please contact your service provider for more details. (32)”. The use of the disputed Domain Name in association with such an error page cannot be regarded as use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. In fact, there is no use at all.<\/p>\n
Second Group of Circumstances Indicating Rights or Legitimate Interests: “you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights”. To Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not have any trademarks corresponding to the disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed Domain Name. As mentioned above, the disputed Domain Name is not used. A legal or a natural person cannot become known through an unused domain name.<\/p>\n
Third Group of Circumstances Indicating Rights or Legitimate Interests: “you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. As per the Complainant’s argument, it states it is clear that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.<\/p>\n
The error page associated with the disputed Domain Name cannot and should not be regarded as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name. The term “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” implies the use of the domain name for, for example, free of charge provision of information without commercial purposes. However, in this case, the webpage associated with the disputed Domain Name contains no valuable information.<\/p>\n
Actually, by associating the disputed Domain Name with an error page, the Respondent misleads the customers of the Complainant into believing that the website of the Complainant is inactive or incomplete. This harms the reputation of the Complainant’s Trademarks and leads to trademark tarnishment. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that a company from the Complainant’s corporate group owns the website ‘www.doctorsexpress.ky’, and uses it for selling services under the trademark “DOCTORS EXPRESS”.<\/p>\n
Since the Complainant’s Trademarks and the disputed Domain Name are confusingly similar, many customers of the Complainant may be misled into believing that the disputed Domain Name and the associated error page are owned by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITHThe disputed Domain Name was registered on the 19 of July 2015, i.e., two days after the date (the 17 of July 2022) when Complainant’s UK trademark No. UK00003118366 for “DOCTORS EXPRESS” was filed.<\/p>\n
In the current case, it is clear that the disputed Domain Name was registered shortly after the Complainant’s filing of the Complainant’s UK application. This means that the Respondent likely found the information about the new trademark application in the database of the UKIPO and registered the disputed Domain Name quickly afterwards to ensure that the Complainant will not be able to reflect its UK trademark in the disputed Domain Name. This is a clear indicator of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Respondent uses a privacy service to hide its contact details and, thus, to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against the Respondent.<\/p>\n
In the current case, there are no reasons to believe that the privacy service is used for legitimate purposes. On the contrary, it appears to be used for block or intentional delay disclosure of the identity of the actual underlying registrant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
--<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
The Respondent alleges the following via a non-standard communication which will be considered as the Response.<\/p>\n
The Respondent alleges he has never been involved in a UDRP matter in the 20 years the Respondent has owned over 3000 generic domains used by its media company.<\/p>\n
The Respondent purchased the disputed Domain Name with plans to develop access to online healthcare in the United States.<\/p>\n
The Respondent purchased the disputed Domain Name a few days after general availability and after the Sunrise \/ trademark period and after the early access program.<\/p>\n
The Respondent lives in the United States and has no concerns in the United Kingdom.<\/p>\n
The Respondent received an e-mail from the Complainant back in 2015 asking if the Respondent would be interested in selling the disputed Domain Name. At the time, the Respondent informed the Complainant about plans the Respondent had on using it for a project. Since then, the Respondent has not heard anything from the Complainant in the past 7 years.<\/p>\n
The Complainant never talked about having a UK trademark on this generic term.<\/p>\n
The Respondent believes the Complainant is trying to hijack the disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
There are many extensions available with doctors express including “.com”, “.org”, “.net” even “.uk” that are not owned by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Respondent states that in the US trademark system there are several marks that have doctors and express in the mark.<\/p>\n
With the new gTLD Program they had set up trademark holders an opportunity to keep these names off general availability. The Complainant did not file any such form.<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims it has always acted in good faith and the names that the Respondent has usually do not resolve until the Respondent is ready to launch its sites. The Respondent does this so there could never be an accusation of acting in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The disputed Domain Name is not listed in a market place and never has been.<\/p>\n
The Respondent simply bought a two-word generic term that fits the Respondent’s business model, 2 days after it became available for anyone to resister after sunrise period.<\/p>\n
In no way does the Respondent harm a Cayman Island company with a UK mark that was applied for a year after the disputed Domain Name was registered.<\/p>\n
According to the Respondent the Complainant simply likes the disputed Domain Name better than his .ky name and is trying to reverse hijack the disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown the disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
Before turning to the substance of the matter at hand, the Panel needs to determine a preliminary matter, which relates to an unsolicited supplemental filing by the Complainant dated December 20, 2022.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes that the UDRP is meant to be a simple and swift process with one bit at the apple, meaning one Complaint and one Response. As such, unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged unless specifically requested by the Panel. In this case, the Panel did not make such a request. As cited in WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 4.6 and under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, these vest the panel with authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition, as well as expressly provide that it is for the Panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case.<\/p>\n
Having established this and considering equity and procedural efficiency, the Panel will disregard the unsolicited supplemental filing by the Complainant dated December 20, as there is further no justification as to why the unsolicited filing should be considered as being an “exceptional” circumstance for its acceptance. <\/p>\n
Having dealt with this preliminary matter, the Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP have been met. There is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-12-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the following trademarks:<\/p>\n