Mbmedlinecorp.com

The timeline behind mbmedlinecorp.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. Domain Administrator / Gbase Technologies Claim Number: FA2602002206776 PARTIES Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Gbase Technologies ("Respondent"), Sri Lanka. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mbmedlinecorp.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Richard Hill 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, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mbmedlinecorp.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 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@mbmedlinecorp.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. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however sent an email to Forum, see below. On March 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is the largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of healthcare supplies in the United States. Since at least as early as 1967, Complainant has offered a wide variety of healthcare products and services under its MEDLINE marks. Today, Complainant's products can be found in most hospitals, extended-care facilities, surgery centers, physician offices, home health agencies, and many retail outlets. Complainant asserts rights in the MEDLINE mark through its registration in the United States in 1970. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MEDLINE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters "mb", the generic/descriptive term "corp" (which stands for "corporation"), and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website prominently features the MEDLINE mark and purports to sell a wide range of medical and healthcare related products. Many of the webpages on the resolving website contain template text in Latin. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its email to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (emphases added): Gbase Technologies registered the domain name on behalf of a client who is incorporated under the name "MB Medline Corp" (Employer Identification No. 87-4326513). The domain was created in connection with that client registration. We take intellectual property matters seriously and, in the interest of resolving this matter promptly and avoiding further administrative proceedings, we are willing to cooperate fully and agree to the voluntary transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. However the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that the evidence set forth in the Complaint would appear to support Complainant's allegations. DISCUSSION 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. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. DECISION Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <mbmedlinecorp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.