DECISION

 

Medline Industries, L.P. v. owuma darego / Catalyst.co

Claim Number: FA2506002162948

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche, Esq. of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is owuma darego / Catalyst.co ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <medlinehub.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025.

 

On June 26, 2025, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medlinehub.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 June 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 17, 2025 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@medlinehub.com. Also on June 27, 2025, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 30, 2025.

 

On June 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER 

The Panel takes note that on June 28, 2025, Forum received a communication from the Respondent stating:

 

"I, Owuma Darego, respondent in the above-mentioned case, hereby submit this apology and response to the complaint filed by Medline Industries, L.P. regarding the domain name (medlinehub.com). . .We acknowledge that the domain name (medlinehub.com) may have caused confusion or concern for Medline Industries, L.P. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and confirm that we have taken immediate action to take down the website associated with the domain name (medlinehub.com). . . In light of the circumstances, we are willing to work towards a resolution that addresses the concerns of Medline Industries, L.P. We are open to discussing possible solutions, including transferring the domain name (medlinehub.com)."

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 15(a) of the Rules thus permits a panel to grant a complainant's requested relief without deference to Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii), when a respondent consents to the requested relief.  See Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. Khalil Shaikh, FA 2020586 (Forum Dec. 14, 2022) (<officedepotfeedback.shop> transferring the domain name registration after also ensuring that Complainant demonstrates that it has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar or identical to the at-issue domain name.). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer).

 

In the instant case, Respondent agrees to transfer its at-issue domain name to Complainant. The Panel, noting that the parties agree as to the disposition of the at-issue domain name, follows its rationale set out in Homer TLC, Inc. v. Jacek Woloszuk, FA613637 (Forum May 17, 2015), as well as in other similarly reasoned decisions where the respondent likewise agreed to transfer the at-issue domain name(s) to the complainant. As more fully discussed in the cases referenced immediately above, as a prerequisite to Complainant obtaining its requested relief ‑ even where Respondent agrees to such relief ‑ Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar or identical to the at-issue domain name. Notably, without requiring a prerequisite finding under paragraph 4(a)(i) a Complainant lacking rights in an at-issue domain name might, via the UDRP, acquire such domain name(s) from a Respondent that also has no rights in such domain name(s).

 

Here, Complainant shows it has rights to the MEDLINE mark through its registration of such mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 897,881 dated Sep. 1, 1970). Registration of a mark with a trademark agency is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (holding, "Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). Furthermore, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant's MEDLINE trademark followed by the term "Hub" and with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between the <medlinehub.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that <medlinehub.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE mark. See 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."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

In light of Respondent's agreeing to transfer the at-issue domain name as discussed above, the Panel finds that further analysis regarding paragraph 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is not warranted and that the domain name should be transferred to Complainant.

 

DECISION

Having established that the Respondent has consented to the requested relief and that the Complainant has rights to a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the at-issue domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <medlinehub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated: July 14, 2025