DECISION

 

McNichols Company, LLC v. he jxing

Claim Number: FA2607002232085

 

PARTIES

Complainant is McNichols Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eleanor M. Yost of Carlton Fields, P.A., Florida, USA. Respondent is he jxing ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mcnicholsus.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026. Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 15, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On July 13, 2026, Dynadot Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mcnicholsus.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 July 16, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 5, 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@mcnicholsus.com. Also on July 16, 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 August 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

 

That Complainant is a Florida limited liability company, doing business as McNichols Co., headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Complainant supplies "hole products," including perforated metal, expanded metal, wire cloth, bar grating, safety grating, and fiberglass grating, and has used its MCNICHOLS mark in commerce since December 31, 1952. Complainant has operated its official website at <mcnichols.com> since the domain's registration in January 1996.

 

That Complainant owns registrations on the Principal Register for MCNICHOLS, including incontestable U.S. Reg. No. 1,992,847 (registered August 13, 1996), covering its perforated metal, expanded metal, wire cloth, grating, and fiberglass products; U.S. Reg. No. 5,031,310 (registered August 30, 2016); and U.S. Reg. No. 2,467,449 (registered July 10, 2001), covering related retail, distributorship, and custom manufacture services.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <mcnicholsus.com>, registered on March 24, 2026, is confusingly similar to Complainant's MCNICHOLS mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the mark in its entirety and appends only the geographic or descriptive suffix "us" and the ".com" gTLD, additions that do not negate confusing similarity. The suffix "us" furthers the false impression of an official United States presence associated with Complainant.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name is constructed to impersonate Complainant, copying the MCNICHOLS mark, Complainant's tagline, its 1952 founding year, its "hole products" identity, its "19 service centers" language, its Tampa location, and its product line, while substituting contact details that are not Complainant's. The registrant is privacy-shielded, and there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known as "mcnicholsus" or any variant thereof, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of its mark. The site solicits visitors' names, business e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and project details through a "Request a Quote" form, establishing a commercial purpose, and the impersonation of Complainant precludes any claim of bona fide offering or fair use.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The registration postdates Complainant's first U.S. registration by roughly three decades and Complainant's first use in commerce by 74 years, and the copying of Complainant's mark, history, and identity establishes that Respondent knew of and deliberately targeted Complainant's mark at registration. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the resolving website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the MCNICHOLS mark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and uses the Disputed Domain Name as an instrument of phishing and data harvesting through the quote form and fabricated contact channels. Further, since July 2025 more than twenty UDRP panels have ordered the transfer of domain names registered by this same Respondent, a pattern establishing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

USPTO records in the case file show that Complainant owns United States Registration No. 1,992,847 for MCNICHOLS, registered on the Principal Register on August 13, 1996, reciting a first use in commerce of December 31, 1952, and renewed for a third ten-year term on December 3, 2025, together with United States Registration Nos. 5,031,310 and 2,467,449 for MCNICHOLS. An archived capture in the record shows Complainant's website at <mcnichols.com> in operation by December 24, 1997, describing McNichols Company as the nation's largest supplier of hole metal and fiberglass products. On this record, Complainant holds long-standing registered rights in the MCNICHOLS mark.

 

The Registrar's verification of July 13, 2026 confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <mcnicholsus.com> was registered with Dynadot Inc. on March 24, 2026, that the publicly available WHOIS record listed only a privacy service as the registrant, and that the underlying registrant is "he jxing" of ShengZhen, GuangDong, China. The Registration Agreement is in English.

 

Nothing in the WHOIS record, the Registrar's verification, or elsewhere in the record indicates that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name, and on the uncontested record Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the MCNICHOLS mark.

 

Screenshots in the record, captured on July 8, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website impersonating Complainant (the "Respondent's Website"). The Respondent's Website presents itself as "McNichols Co.," displays the banner "ESTABLISHED 1952 - 19 SERVICE CENTERS NATIONWIDE" and Complainant's tagline "Every Hole Has a Purpose," recounts Complainant's Tampa founding history, and offers the same categories of hole products that Complainant sells. Its contact page lists a Tampa headquarters address mirroring Complainant's actual address, a toll-free telephone number that does not appear among the contact numbers published on Complainant's authentic website, and e-mail addresses formed on Complainant's own <mcnichols.com> domain. Through "Request a Quote" and "Get a Quote" forms, the Respondent's Website solicits visitors' names, business e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and project details. The Panel finds that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent's Website to engage in phishing, harvesting the personal and business information of Internet users who believe they are dealing with Complainant.

 

On the uncontested record, Respondent has been the respondent in more than twenty UDRP proceedings decided since July 2025, before Forum, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, and other providers, each ordering the transfer of the domain name or names at issue, the majority involving another's mark paired with a geographic or descriptive term and registered through Dynadot Inc. behind a privacy service.

 

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 Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the MCNICHOLS mark through its United States Registration No. 1,992,847, registered August 13, 1996, and its further United States registrations. Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <mcnicholsus.com> incorporates Complainant's MCNICHOLS mark in its entirety, adding only the geographic abbreviation "us" and the ".com" gTLD. The added abbreviation does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; the mark remains clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. See Amcor Pty Ltd. v. he jxing, FA 2212379 (Forum Apr. 22, 2026) (finding <amcorus.com>, formed by this same Respondent from the complainant's AMCOR mark and the same geographic abbreviation "us," confusingly similar to that mark). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MCNICHOLS 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, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

The publicly available WHOIS record listed only a privacy service, and the Registrar's verification identifies the underlying registrant as "he jxing," a name bearing no resemblance to "mcnicholsus." There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of the MCNICHOLS mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (respondent not commonly known by the domain name where the WHOIS identifies a registrant name bearing no resemblance to it and nothing in the record suggests authorization to use the mark).

 

Nor does Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent's Website passes itself off as Complainant and purports to offer the very products Complainant sells under the MCNICHOLS mark. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025) (use of a confusingly similar domain name to address a website purporting to sell products of the kind also offered by the complainant is "neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). The solicitation of visitor information through the site's quote forms, under Complainant's appropriated identity, likewise confers no legitimate interest. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. he jxing, FA 2227099 (Forum July 10, 2026) (holding, as to this same Respondent, that impersonating the complainant and soliciting users' personal information through submission forms is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has not come forward with any evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 24, 2026, some thirty years after Complainant's first MCNICHOLS registration issued. The Respondent's Website reproduces Complainant's mark, tagline, founding year, family history, headquarters address, and product line. Copying of that character is not explicable except by reference to Complainant, and it establishes that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MCNICHOLS mark and with the intent to exploit them. See Amcor Pty Ltd. v. he jxing, FA 2212379 (Forum Apr. 22, 2026) (finding on materially identical facts that this same Respondent's copycat website established registration with actual knowledge of the complainant's mark).

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to operate a website that passes itself off as Complainant constitutes bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). By creating a likelihood of confusion with the MCNICHOLS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's Website, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to that website. See Cable News Network, Inc. v. GARCIA Antonio Manuel Moniz / Maka Mavulo Newsfreelance, FA 2144830 (Forum Apr. 10, 2025) ("[U]sing a disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a site that passes off as complainant's evinces bad faith").

 

The phishing character of the scheme independently evidences bad faith. The Respondent's Website harvests the names, business e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and project details of visitors deceived by Complainant's appropriated identity, while the substituted contact channels described in the Findings make it unlikely that those visitors will discover the deception. Use of a domain name to obtain the personal or business information of Internet users by impersonating a trademark owner constitutes bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4; see also Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. he jxing, FA 2227099 (Forum July 10, 2026) (finding that this same Respondent's materially identical submission-form solicitation, on a website impersonating the complainant, constituted phishing and bad faith).

 

The record further discloses a pattern of conduct within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Since July 2025, more than twenty UDRP panels have ordered the transfer of domain names registered by Respondent; two of those decisions, the Amcor and Agilent decisions cited above, are decisions of this Panel. This serial conduct shows that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name as part of a pattern of preventing trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names, and it corroborates the finding of deliberate targeting set out above.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <mcnicholsus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 6, 2026