DECISION

 

McDonald Hopkins LLC v. Lisa Wayne

Claim Number: FA2602002207588

 

PARTIES

Complainant is McDonald Hopkins LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Lisa Wayne ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mcdonaldshopkins.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026.

 

On February 27, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 March 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2026 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@mcdonaldshopkins.com. Also on March 4, 2026, 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 March 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

For more than 25 years, Complainant has used the distinctive MCDONALD HOPKINS Mark for legal services. McDonald Hopkins has been repeatedly recognized as one of the country's leading law firms. In 2023, U.S. News and World Report and Best Lawyers named McDonald Hopkins as one of the nation's "Best Law Firms." The 2026 U.S. Best Law Firms® rankings recognized McDonald Hopkins as a leading firm in more than 24 different practice areas. Notably, nine of its practices earned national rankings, including commercial litigation, bankruptcy law, banking and finance law, patent law, corporate law, employee benefits law, and real estate law. Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office Reg. No. 4221744, dated October 9, 2012, for the mark MCDONALD HOPKINS and it also uses the domain name <mcdonaldhopkins.com> for its website and email addresses.

 

The <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name, registered on January 7, 2026, is confusingly similar to the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only an additional letter "s" and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, it hosts no website, and it has sent a phishing message using the domain name in an email address.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned phishing activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns rights to the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark and the <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and its perpetuation of a phishing scheme indicates that it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's impersonation of Complainant through a phishing scheme.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in its MCDONALD HOPKINS mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the 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)."). Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), altering letters in a trademark, along with adding a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See Novartis AG v. Domain Privacy LTD, UDRP-106373 (CAC May 5, 2024) ("The Panel observes that the single difference in this case is the omission of the letter 'r'. Misspellings are immaterial. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name it is sufficient to establish confusing similarity."). See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name adds an extra letter "s" to the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark and also appends the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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 names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Lisa Wayne" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that "Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant in any way, and Complainant has not given Respondent any permission, license, or authorization to use the MCDONALD HOPKINS Mark or the <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the message "The content of the page cannot be displayed" and also claims that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send emails that impersonate one of Complainant's employees in an attempt to defraud Complainant's clients.

 

A Respondent failing to make use of a confusingly similar domain name in relation to a website typically indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain.  Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message 'website coming soon!'"). See also Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain."). Here, the disputed domain resolve to an error page and so this provides no help to Respondent.

 

Additionally, using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate an employee of a complainant in an attempt to defraud its customers, vendors, or other business partners is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (Where "Respondent has used the name to pass themselves off as an employee of the Complainant in an attempt to commit fraud by redirecting a legitimate wire of funds", the Panel concluded that "it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose."). Here, Complainant submits a copy of a phishing email that the Respondent sent using an address which incorporates the disputed domain name. This was sent to one of the Complainant's clients and Respondent uses the name of one of Complainant's actual paralegals. The message states "Could you please resend the buyer's email address? I attempted to reach out to earlier but received an email notification, suggesting the address I have on file is incorrect." The emails use a signature block that displays the impersonated employee's name and title, Complainant's postal address and phone number, as well as the correct email address for the paralegal using Complainant's legitimate <mcdonaldhopkins.com> domain name. From this, the Panel concludes that Respondent was attempting to obtain, from one of Complainant's clients, the email address for a company that may have been involved in some type of business transaction.

 

As Complainant has made out a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by Respondent, upon a preponderance of the available evidence the Panel finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MCDONALD HOPKINS mark. A respondent's actual knowledge can form a solid foundation upon which a case for bad faith may be built under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."). Complainant claims that its mark is well known and that it "has been repeatedly recognized as one of the country's leading law firms" including receiving a 2023 award as one of U.S. News and World Report's Best Law Firms. It also claims to have "invested significant time, money, and effort in promoting the MCDONALD HOPKINS Mark." In support, it submits screenshots of its <mcdonaldhopkins.com> website as well as the results of a Google search for the term "mcdonaldhopkins" showing many mentions of its firm. As this evidence of Complainant's brand reputation is rather thin and doesn't fully support its claims, the Panel finds far more persuasive Respondent's use of the mark for a phishing email which clearly shows its familiarity with Complainant and its mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name.

 

Next, bad faith is asserted based on Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A Respondent's use of a disputed domain name in an e-mail address to pass itself off as a complainant in a phishing scheme is persuasive evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent's attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also SHUAA Capital psc v. Oba Junkie / shuaa capital psc, FA 1581255 (Forum Oct. 29, 2014) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the domain name's e-mail suffix for fraudulent purposes illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith."). Here, as noted above, the submitted email sent from the disputed domain name shows an attempt to impersonate one of Complainant's paralegals and obtain sensitive information from a client. This evidence leads the Panel to determine that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to attract commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark under ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further argues that typosquatting itself is an indicator of bad faith and the Panel agrees. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."); Gap Inc. and its subsidiary, Old Navy (Apparel), LLC v. Jiri Capcuch, FA 1562139 (Forum July 2, 2014) ("Respondent adds an additional letter 'v' to Complainant's OLD NAVY mark in the <oldnavvy.com> domain name, a classic example of typosquatting. Respondent's typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel notes the one-character difference between Complainant's MCDONALD HOPKINS mark and the <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name. Thus, it finds further support for the conclusion that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Finally, Complainant notes that Respondent provided false contact information when it registered the disputed domain name and this also shows bad faith registration and use. Specifically, it notes that the address listed in the WHOIS record is actually that of an escrow service and that there is no apparent connection between that service and the named Respondent. While the Panel agrees that false WHOIS information can indicate bad faith, see FIL Limited v. Domain Admin, WhoIs IDCPrivacy Service / Leonard Kitimbo, D2019-1374 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2019) ("Respondent's submission of inaccurate, incomplete, or falsified contact information to the Registrar, without a street name, postcode, or valid telephone number, further supports a finding of Respondent's bad faith"),  it must discount this claim as Complainant has provided no evidence to support its assertions regarding the address, the escrow service, or the lack of any connection with Respondent's 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 <mcdonaldshopkins.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: March 27, 2026