WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Georgetown Hospital System d/b/a Tidelands Health v. Zhichao Yang Case No. D2018-1258 1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainant is Georgetown Hospital System d/b/a Tidelands Health of Georgetown, South Carolina, United States of America, represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States of America.

1.2 The Respondent is Zhichao Yang of Anhui, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name)” is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 6, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, in which it identified the “underlying” registrant of the Domain Name. Hereinafter, save where the contrary is apparent from the context, references to the Respondent in this decision are references to that person. In response to a notification by the Center the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 2018.

3.2 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”).

3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 10, 2018.

3.4 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2018. 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

4.1 The Complainant operates a number of hospitals and also provides outpatient facilities in South Carolina. The first of these hospitals opened in 1950. It has used “Tidelands Health” in respect of those activities since at least April 2015. It has also owned the domain name since April 16, 2014. This domain name is currently used for the Complainant’s website, through which it advertises and promotes its various healthcare services.

4.2 The Complainant is the owner of United States registered trade mark 4868287 for TIDELANDS HEALTH as a standard character mark in class 44. It was filed on January 7, 2015 and proceeded to registration on December 8, 2015. It is subject to a disclaimer in respect of the “exclusive right to use ‘Health’“.

4.3 The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2018. It has been used since registration to display a pay-per-click parking page, with health or medical related links.

4.4 The WhoIs details now available for the Domain Name suggest that the Respondent is an individual in China.

4.5 On March 29, 2018 the Complainant’s attorneys sent a cease and desist letter to the privacy service, the details of which were then publicly displayed in response to a WhoIs search. A reminder was sent on April 13, 2018. The Complainant’s attorneys received no response to their letter.

4.6 A pay-per-click parking page continues to operate from the Domain Name as at the date of this decision. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant describes it business and registered mark. It contends that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered trade mark, noting that the only difference between the second level of the Domain Name and that mark is the omission of the letter “s”. It also observes that the omission of the letter “s” is the only difference between the Domain Name and the domain name used in respect of the Complainant’s activities.

5.2 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, claiming that none of the examples of such rights or legi