Medlinecourierservice.com

The timeline behind medlinecourierservice.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 Medline Industries, L.P. v. Takeisha Stewart / Future Genius Academy LLC Claim Number: FA2602002206754 PARTIES Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Takeisha Stewart / Future Genius Academy LLC ("Respondent"), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <medlinecourierservice.com>, 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. Adam Taylor as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026. On February 23, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medlinecourierservice.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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 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@medlinecourierservice.com. Also on February 25, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 9, 2026. On March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has rights in the MEDLINE mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain name, and Complainant's mark, to create the mistaken impression that Respondent's website is authorized by Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the MEDLINE mark in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's fame. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent contends that: - the name "Medline Courier Service" was selected to describe the nature of the services being offered, namely medical logistics and courier transport; - the term "medline" in this context refers to the "medical line of service" or "medical transport pathway" and was not selected to imitate or capitalize on Complainant's brand; - the descriptive phrase "courier service" clearly indicates a different type of business activity from that of Complainant; - Respondent possesses legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; - the disputed domain name was registered in connection with a legitimate business concept, which Respondent has been actively planning and developing; - the disputed domain name was not registered for resale, domain parking for profit, or to mislead consumers; - the disputed domain name was not registered or used in bad faith; - Respondent did not intend to disrupt Complainant's business or confuse consumers; and - Respondent has never attempted to impersonate Complainant. FINDINGS Complainant has supplied healthcare products under the mark MEDLINE since 1967. Complainant currently manufactures and distributes more than 100,000 products in the United States and worldwide. Complainant owns various registered trademarks for MEDLINE, including Reg. No. 897,881, registered with the USPTO on September 1, 1970. Complainant operates a website at www.medline.com. The disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2026. As of February 23, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was branded "MEDLINE COURIER SERVICE", and which purported to offer delivery of medical specimens. The only active link on the home page was a "Delivery Quotes" button, which prompted an email enquiry. There was also an enquiry form. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the MEDLINE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's distinctive MEDLINE mark and adds the descriptive term "courier service". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.") Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE 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 Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent claims that it uses the disputed domain name legitimately for medical logistics and courier transport services. The Panel notes that, despite Complainant having pointed out that only one of the links on Respondent's website is functioning, to enable email enquiries, Respondent has not produced any evidence indicating that Respondent is operating a genuine medical transport business via the website. Furthermore, as discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or service. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Takeisha Stewart / Future Genius Academy LLC". Furthermore, as discussed above, Respondent has not supplied any evidence to verify that it is genuinely trading under the name "Medline Courier Service". Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). First, the disputed domain name comprises Complainant's distinctive and well-known mark plus the descriptive term "courier service". Respondent does not deny knowledge of Complainant's mark and, especially given Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in an alleged medical context, the Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently of Complainant's mark. The Panel is not convinced by Respondent's claim that it selected the disputed domain name by reference to a "medical line of service" or "medical transport pathway". Second, Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that creates the impression that it is associated with Complainant by offering an alleged medical-related service, and by the lack of any prominent disclaimer. Contrary to Complainant's assertion, the Panel does not consider that the descriptive phrase "courier service" clearly indicates a different type of business activity from that of Complainant; on the contrary, in the Panel's view, use of that term in conjunction with Complainant's distinctive mark is strongly indicative of a medical courier service associated with Complainant. Third, as discussed under the second element above, Respondent has in any case failed to provide any evidence that the business promoted at its website is in fact genuine. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <medlinecourierservice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Adam Taylor, Panelist Dated: March 11, 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.