DECISION

 

Medline Industries, L.P. v. Star Moore / Medline

Claim Number: FA2507002166451

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Star Moore / Medline ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <medlineindustries.tech>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 18, 2025; Forum received payment on July 18, 2025.

 

On July 22, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 July 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 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@medlineindustries.tech. Also on July 24, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 14, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, Medline Industries, L.P., is the largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of healthcare supplies and services in the United States. Since as early as 1967, Complainant has been using the inherently distinctive MEDLINE mark in connection with healthcare products and services.

 

Respondent's <medlineindustries.tech> domain name is confusingly similar to the MEDLINE mark. Complainant has rights in the MEDLINE mark through any of Complainant's multiple trademark registrations of such mark, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and with multiple other trademark registrars worldwide. The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark as the domain name includes Complainant's trademark and the generic term "industries" and adds the ".tech" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name. Respondent is neither generally known by the at-issue domain name nor has it acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by MEDLINE and so there is no evidence of Respondent's legitimate rights or interests in <medlineindustries.tech>. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the MEDLINE mark in connection with the at-issue domain name. Respondent also has no rights in the MEDLINE mark as Complainant's longstanding trademark rights would prevent the Respondent from acquiring such rights. Respondent's use of the domain name creates the mistaken impression that the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name is authorized by Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent is not using <medlineindustries.tech> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The at-issue domain name addresses a website that displays Complainant's trademark and trade name, and purports to offer shipping and logistic services. It also displays Complainant's main customer service telephone number at the in the bottom banner on the resolving webpage. Such use is not legitimate under the Policy.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered <medlineindustries.tech> long after Complainant adopted, used, and registered its MEDLINE mark, and long after the MEDLINE mark became well-known and famous. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to take advantage of the value and goodwill associated with Complainant's MEDLINE mark, which also constitutes bad faith. By virtue of the fame of the MEDLINE brand it is clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to resolve to a website that attempts to confuse consumers into mistakenly believing that it is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's <medlineindustries.tech> website prominently displays Complainant's MEDLINE mark, corporate name and primary customer service telephone number. Visitors to the site would likely believe, falsely, that they were visiting a website owned and operated by Complainant or that the <medlineindustries.tech> website is affiliated with Complainant. Consumers would logically expect that Complainant owns the at-issue domain name, just as Complainant owns many other MEDLINE-formative domain names. The combination of the Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's prior rights, and Respondent's use of the <medlineindustries.tech> intentionally to attract users to a website for its own commercial gain further constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the MEDLINE trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the MEDLINE trademark.

 

Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to address a website which falsely poses as if it were associated with Complainant and there purports to offer logistic services that are similar to services offered by Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration, or any of its other trademark registrations worldwide, for its MEDLINE trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, 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 <medlineindustries.tech> domain name contains Complainant's MEDLINE trademark followed by the suggestive term "industries," with all followed by the ".tech" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name from Complainant's MEDLINE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <medlineindustries.tech> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE trademark. 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).)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately reveals the domain name's registrant as "Star Moore" with the organization "Medline" and the record before the Panel contains no compelling evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <medlineindustries.tech> notwithstanding that Respondent claimed to be associated with an organization called "Medline" in registering the domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <medlineindustries.tech> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <medlineindustries.tech> domain name to address a website appearing to look as if it might be sponsored by Complainant. Notably there, Respondent prominently displays Complainant's MEDLINE mark, corporate name and primary customer service telephone number. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass off as Complainant 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 Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <medlineindustries.tech>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it is sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of <medlineindustries.tech> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <medlineindustries.tech> domain name and website, and Complainant's MEDLINE trademark. Respondent's use of <medlineindustries.tech> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the MEDLINE mark when it registered <medlineindustries.tech> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given Complainant's well-known distinctive mark and given Respondent's use of its <medlineindustries.tech> domain name to address a website posing as if it is sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in MEDLINE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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 domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 15, 2025