Medline Industries, L.P. v. Eric Rice
Claim Number: FA2204001991184
Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Ashly I Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Eric Rice (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <medlinecareinc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 5, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 5, 2022.
On April 6, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 7, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@medlinecareinc.com. Also on April 7, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 3, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a manufacturer and distributor of healthcare supplies.
Complainant has rights in the MEDLINE mark through its registration of the mark with multiple national registrars worldwide.
Respondent’s <medlinecareinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the MEDLINE mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive terms “care” and “inc” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the MEDLINE mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent takes advantage of Complainant’s reputation to confuse internet users into believing the domain is sponsored by Complainant. The domain name redirects traffic to Complainant’s website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in MEDLINE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the MEDLINE mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in MEDLINE.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet traffic to Complainant’s active website.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has multiple national registrations for its MEDLINE trademark. A single national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO.).
Respondent’s <medlinecareinc.com> domain name contains Complainant’s MEDLINE trademark followed by the suggestive terms “care” and “inc” with all followed by the “.com” generic top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <medlinecareinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDLINE trademark. See MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Eric Rice” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also, Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4 (a)(ii).
Respondent’s <medlinecareinc.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent’s use of <medlinecareinc.com> indicates that the domain name was registered and is used to confuse internet users in to believing that the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name is sponsored by Complainant when it is not thus showing Respondent’ bad faith under the Policy. See Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use).
Moreover, Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name is used to redirect traffic to Complainant’s official website. Respondent’s use of the domain name thereby shows bad faith registration and use of the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, D2007-1231 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2007) (finding bad faith when "Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to link to the Complainant’s own website. Inherent in that conduct is the risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to re-direct to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant.").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <medlinecareinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page