Mckoolsmiths.com

The timeline behind mckoolsmiths.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION McKool Smith v. Mike Miller Case No. D2026-2764 1. The Parties Complainant is McKool Smith, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, United States. Respondent is Mike Miller, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mckoolsmiths.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2026. On June 25, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 26, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 22, 2026. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a law firm with multiple offices throughout the United States. Complainant owns United States trademark registration number 4690744 for the MCKOOL SMITH word mark, registered on February 24, 2015, with a first use date of at least August 12, 1991. Complainant also owns and operates the <mckoolsmith.com> domain name, through which it provides clients and consumers with information regarding its legal services. The Domain Name was registered on June 10, 2025 and resolves to an inactive site. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights for MCKOOL SMITH and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known MCKOOL SMITH products and services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name, which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the MCKOOL SMITH trademark, as noted above. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the MCKOOL SMITH trademark. page 3 With Complainant’s rights in the MCKOOL SMITH trademark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it was registered (in this case, is “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MCKOOL SMITH trademark as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the letter “s” after Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of identical or confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the MCKOOL SMITH trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its MCKOOL SMITH trademark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the MCKOOL SMITH trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating these trademarks. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the MCKOOL SMITH trademark and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the Domain Name is inactive. Therefore, the Domain Name has not been used for any bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In addition, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or page 4 (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the MCKOOL SMITH trademark long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s MCKOOL SMITH trademark and related services are widely known and recognized. Therefore, and also noting the below use analysis, Respondent was clearly aware of the MCKOOL SMITH trademark when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Moreover, the inclusion of Complainant’s trademark in its entirety in the Domain Name, further reflects the awareness that Respondent had of Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration. Such adoption of Complainant’s trademark and contact details at the time of registration of the Domain Name illustrates Respondent’s effort to mislead Internet users as to the Domain Name’s association with Complainant, or to mimic Complainant. Prior to filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to an inactive webpage, which does not prevent a finding of Respondent’s bad faith under the circumstances of the case. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. See also Brand Shared Services LLC v. Jesse Conwell, WIPO Case No. D2025-4486 (passive holding of a domain name, in combination with factors such as domain name composition and reputation of the mark, can constitute registration and use in bad faith under the UDRP), and Brand Shared Services, LLC v. marilyn yonan, WIPO Case No. D2026-0040. Despite being inactive, there is no indication or evidence that Respondent is preparing to use the Domain Name for any other alternate purpose. Further, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a response. In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the MCKOOL SMITH trademark, the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, and the apparently fraudulent information when registering the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Therefore, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. page 5 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <mckoolsmiths.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: August 10, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.