Welcometomcdonalds.com

The timeline behind welcometomcdonalds.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION McDonald's Corporation v. Joleen Colpa Claim Number: FA2502002138358 PARTIES Complainant is McDonald's Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Leonard Searcy of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Joleen Colpa ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <welcometomcdonalds.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2025; Forum received payment on February 3, 2025. On February 3, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <welcometomcdonalds.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@welcometomcdonalds.com. Also on February 4, 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 February 25, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark McDONALD'S registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 1963 with first use recorded as 1953. The Complainant also has common law rights in the slogan WELCOME TO McDONALD'S which it has used extensively since 1953. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been offered for sale generally on a parked page bearing a number of logos of the Complainant suggesting an affiliation with the Complainant where there is none. The Respondent also offered the Domain Name for sale to the Complainant in an e mail in December 2024. Offering to sell a domain name is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interest and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. Nor is impersonation. Offering the Domain Name for sale generally demonstrates the Respondent's intention behind registering the Domain Name is to sell the Domain Name for profit and is bad faith registration and use. Failure to use the Domain Name for an active web site is passive use and in the context of the fact that the Domain Name contains the Complainant's well known mark is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith. The use of the Complainant's logos on the parked page and the Complainant's slogan in the Domain Name is also registration and use in bad faith intended to confuse Internet users and disrupt the Complainant's business in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark McDONALD'S registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 1963 with first use recorded as 1953. The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been offered for sale generally on a parked page bearing a number of logos of the Complainant. The Respondent also sent an email to the Complainant in December 2024 offering the Domain Name for sale. 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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant's McDONALD'S mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for restaurant services since 1963 with first use recorded as 1953), merely omitting the apostrophe and adding the generic term 'welcome to' and the gTLD .com. The omission of an apostrophe from a trade mark will not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. See SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby's v. Hong Chen, FA 1845957 (Forum June 29, 2019). See also Daddy's Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Kausar, FA 140598 (Forum Feb. 11, 2003) ("The lack of an apostrophe in the domain name is not a distinguishing difference because punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark."). The addition of generic words and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic word and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). Accordingly the addition of the generic words 'welcome to' and the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a registered mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy and there is no need to consider the additional question of the common law rights of the Complainant in the slogan "Welcome to McDonald's". As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark has been offered for sale generally and directly in an email from the Respondent to the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. Offering a disputed domain name for sale provides evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that an offer for sale provides evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name). The Domain Name has been pointed to a parked page. Not using a Domain Name for an active web site does not show a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use for the purposes of the Policy. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Theresa W Chavez, FA 1973154 (Forum Dec. 14, 2021) ("When Respondent is not using a 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. [...]"). The parked page attached to the Domain Name features a number of the Complainant's logos. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is a form of impersonation. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant in order to cause existing or potential customers of the complainant to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark which has a reputation for restaurant services has been offered for sale generally, and to the Complainant directly, by the Respondent. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (An offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).). Further, in the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive and visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant due to the use of the Complainant's logo marks on the parked page offering to sell the Domain Name. The use of the Complainant's logo and the use of the Complainant's slogan "Welcome to McDonalds" shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006 )(finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). In relation to the passive holding of a domain name by pointing it to a parked page, the overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark or a sign confusingly similar to that mark can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and that the Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(i), (iii) and (iv). 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 <welcometomcdonalds.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 25, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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