Mcdonaldhopkin-s.com

The timeline behind mcdonaldhopkin-s.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 Hopkins LLC v. m macus / mcdonaldhopkin-s Claim Number: FA2511002189692 PARTIES Complainant is McDonald Hopkins LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is m macus / mcdonaldhopkin-s ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mcdonaldhopkin-s.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Tucows Domains 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 19, 2025; Forum received payment on November 19, 2025. On November 20, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mcdonaldhopkin-s.com> Domain Name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 November 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 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@mcdonaldhopkin-s.com. Also on November 21, 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 December 13, 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 the trade mark MCDONALD HOPKINS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services since 2000. It owns the domain name mcdonaldhopkins.com. The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, merely adding a hyphen and the gTLD .com which is not enough to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Respondent, is trying to deceive people into believing the Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. The Domain Name does not point to an active site. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services or non commercial legitimate and fair use. Passive holding of a domain name containing a third party mark with a reputation is bad faith with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The Respondent has used false domain name data registration details to perpetuate its deception which also shows bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MCDONALD HOPKINS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services since 2000. It owns the domain name mcdonaldhopkins.com. The Domain Name registered in 2025 does not point to an active web site. The Respondent has used false information for the Domain Name's data registration details. 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 consists of a very similar sign to the Complainant's MCDONALD HOPKINS mark (registered in the USA for legal services since 2000) merely adding a hyphen and the gTLD .com. The addition of a hyphen and the gTLD .com to a mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark incorporated therein per Policy 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug, 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of a sign confusingly similar to its mark. Although MCDONALDHOPKIN-S appears in the Domain Name registration details the Domain Name was not registered until 2025 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). The Domain Name does not point to an active web site. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i)). The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) As is providing false details to the WhoIS database as the Respondent appears to have done here. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist 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 Typosquatting is bad faith per se and shows actual knowledge of the Complainant. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). If the Panel finds Respondent engaged in typosquatting, it may find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Additionally providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration may be evidence of respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <mcdonaldhopkin-s.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: December 15, 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.