Medline365.com

The timeline behind medline365.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.

DECISION Medline Industries, L.P. v. Dmitrijs Jemeljanovs / Forward IT Consulting SIA, 40103746299 Claim Number: FA2502002142530 PARTIES Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Dmitrijs Jemeljanovs / Forward IT Consulting SIA, 40103746299 ("Respondent"), Latvia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <medline365.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2025; Forum received payment on February 27, 2025. On February 28, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medline365.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 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@medline365.com. Also on March 3, 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 March 25, 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. Complainant has rights in the MEDLINE mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and multiple other trademark registrars worldwide. Respondent's <medline365.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the MEDLINE mark as it merely adds the number "365" and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <medline365.com> 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 <medline365.com>. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the MEDLINE mark in connection with the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not using <medline365.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The at-issue domain name resolves to a website, which offers health-related services that are related to Complainant's healthcare supplies and services such that it creates the appearance that it is a legitimate Medline website. Respondent registered and uses the <medline365.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name long after Complainant adopted, used, and registered its MEDLINE mark, and long after the MEDLINE mark became well-known and famous. Respondent registered the domain name to take advantage of the goodwill in Complainant's mark. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights when it registered the at-issue domain name. The combination of the Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's prior rights, and Respondent's use of the <medline365.com> intentionally to attract users to a website for its own commercial gain 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 uses the at-issue domain name to address a website which offers health-related services that are related to Medline's healthcare supplies and services. 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 <medline365.com> domain name contains Complainant's MEDLINE trademark followed by the numerical term "365" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <medline365.com> domain name from Complainant's MEDLINE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <medline365.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE trademark. See American International Group, Inc. v. \u91d1 \u5434 / Paranaque, FA 2081689 (Forum Feb. 22, 2024) (finding the <aig8666.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the AIG mark because "it wholly incorporates Complainant's mark and merely adds non-distinctive material, namely the numbers "8666" to the AIG mark."); 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."). 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 lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. 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 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 reveals the domain name's registrant as "Dmitrijs Jemeljanovs" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <medline365.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <medline365.com> 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 <medline365.com> domain name to address a website appearing to look as if it might be sponsored by Complainant. There, Complainant's MEDLINE mark is prominently displayed followed by a space and the number "365." Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner 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 the at-issue domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it is sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of <medline365.com> 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 then, or sometime in the future, capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <medline365.com> domain name and website, and Complainant's MEDLINE trademark. Respondent's use of <medline365.com> 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 <medline365.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is obvious given Complainant's well-known distinctive mark and given Respondent's use of its <medline365.com> 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 <medline365.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 26, 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.