Mediacomecable.com

The timeline behind mediacomecable.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 Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Domain Admin / Hush Whois Protection Ltd. Claim Number: FA2601002202188 PARTIES Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski, Jr. of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Hush Whois Protection Ltd. ("Respondent"), Seychelles. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mediacomecable.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026. On January 29, 2026, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mediacomecable.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 January 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 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@mediacomecable.com. Also on January 29, 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 February 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 (i) Complainant is one of the largest cable television companies in the United States. Through extensive advertising, promotion, sales, and widespread public recognition, the MEDIACOM mark has become well known and has accrued significant goodwill in the United States. Complainant holds rights in the MEDIACOM mark through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 2,544,829, registered March 5, 2002). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDIACOM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, and differs from Complainant's MEDIACOM mark and official <mediacomcable.com> domain name by merely a single letter. Specifically, Respondent simply inserted the letter "E" between "mediacom" and "cable." (ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use its MEDIACOM mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage hosting third party links, including links to Complainant's competitors. (iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that provides links to Complainant's competitors. Such conduct deceives the public into believing that the website is affiliated with, or authorized by, Complainant, thereby enabling Respondent to exploit Complainant's widely known MEDIACOM mark. By diverting Internet traffic intended for Complainant and commercially profiting from the hyperlinks, Respondent engages in bad faith conduct. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MEDIACOM mark at the time of registration. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 10, 2012. 2. Complainant has established rights in the MEDIACOM mark through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 2,544,829, registered March 5, 2002). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring numerous hyperlinks, many of which relate to the same categories of services that Complainant offers and promotes on its official website under the MEDIACOM mark. 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 Complainant asserts rights in the MEDIACOM mark through its registration with the USPTO. A USPTO trademark registration is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided evidence of its registration for the MEDIACOM mark ( e.g., Reg. No. 2,544,829, registered March 5, 2002). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MEDIACOM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <mediacomecable.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDIACOM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, and differs from Complainant's MEDIACOM mark and official <mediacomcable.com> domain name by merely a single letter. Specifically, Respondent simply inserted the letter "E" between "mediacom" and "cable." The Panel observes that the disputed domain name differs from Complainant's official domain name <mediacomcable.com> by the addition of a single letter "E." This minor alteration, combined with the addition of the descriptive term "cable" to Complainant's mark, does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDIACOM 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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS information lists "Domain Admin / Hush Whois Protection Ltd." as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring numerous hyperlinks. Many of these links relate to the same categories of services that Complainant offers and promotes on its official website under the MEDIACOM mark. The Panel observes that such use is not generally recognized as a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Administrator, FA 1998681 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("Respondent has previously used the disputed domain name as a parking website which hosts third-party links to competitors of Complainant. Such a use is generally not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving webpage, which prominently displays third party links under categories such as "Best Bundle Packages for TV Internet and Phone," "Best Bundle Deals for TV Internet and Phone," and "Wireless Internet Providers by Zip Code" under the title "Internet, TV and Phone Services: How to Choose the Right Bundle for Your Home," and offers various guidance and benefits of "Bundling Home Services," including the section "Activate your account to start." Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel determines that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the above considerations. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a webpage featuring numerous hyperlinks. Many of these links relate to the same categories of services that Complainant offers and promotes on its official website under the MEDIACOM mark. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to mislead the public into believing the website is associated with Complainant, thereby leveraging Complainant's well known MEDIACOM mark to divert traffic and generate revenue from pay per click links. This conduct disrupts Complainant's business by depriving it of the ability to use the disputed domain name for its own services. Hosting hyperlinks that compete with a complainant may constitute evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Morgan Stanley v. Domain Administrator, FA 1998681 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("Hosting hyperlinks that compete with a complainant may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). As previously noted, the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a webpage, which prominently displays third party links under categories such as "Best Bundle Packages for TV Internet and Phone," "Best Bundle Deals for TV Internet and Phone," and "Wireless Internet Providers by Zip Code," under the title "Internet, TV and Phone Services: How to Choose the Right Bundle for Your Home," and offers various guidance and benefits of "Bundling Home Services," including the section "Activate your account to start." The Panel finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Complainant's competitors for commercial gain, and thus concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MEDIACOM mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of a complainant's rights is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith and may be inferred when a respondent incorporates a well-known or registered mark into a disputed domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel infers actual knowledge of Complainant's mark based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name."). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, and differs from Complainant's MEDIACOM mark and official <mediacomcable.com> domain name by merely a single letter. Specifically, Respondent simply inserted the letter "E" between "mediacom" and "cable." The associated website includes links related to Internet services offered by Complainant. Based on the fame of Complainant's mark and the nature of Respondent's use, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights, constituting bad faith under 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 <mediacomecable.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: February 20, 2026 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.