Medline Industries, Inc. v. Toya Robinson / Medline
Claim Number: FA2301002028472
Complainant is Medline Industries, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Toya Robinson / Medline (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <medlineindustriesjobs.com>, registered with Google 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 Forum electronically on January 20, 2023; Forum received payment on January 20, 2023.
On January 20, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 January 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 14, 2023 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@medlineindustriesjobs.com. Also on January 25, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 17, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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, Medline Industries, Inc. is in the healthcare supplies business.
Complainant asserts rights in the MEDLINE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <medlineindustriesjobs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDLINE trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the terms “jobs” and “industries” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MEDLINE mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent also does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent holds the domain name inactively.
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 holds the at-issue domain name passively.
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 including registration with the USPTO. A single national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
Respondent’s <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name contains Complainant’s MEDLINE trademark followed by the descriptive terms “industries” and “jobs” 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 <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDLINE trademark. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.); 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 “Toya Robinson / Medline” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <medlineindustriesjobs.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, SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.).
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Browsing to <medlineindustriesjobs.com> returns an error message stating: “This site can’t be reached.” Respondent’s passive holding of the at-issue domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 0296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (Finding that resolving to an empty page featuring no substantive content or links is evidence that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name, suggesting a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”).
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 <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent holds <medlineindustriesjobs.com> passively. Respondent’s failure to actively use the at-issue domain name shows bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”).
Moreover, Respondent registered the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in MEDLINE and thus in <medlineindustriesjobs.com>. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s relevant rights is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s and from Respondent’s inclusion of somewhat suggestive terms in forming the domain name. Respondent’s registration of <medlineindustriesjobs.com> while having knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in MEDLINE further indicates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed the disputed domain name”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <medlineindustriesjobs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page