Thewalgreens.com

The timeline behind thewalgreens.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 Walgreen Co. v. Tarun Madhuakar Sinha / Walgreens Claim Number: FA2602002207778 PARTIES Complainant is Walgreen Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Michelle Bolos of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Tarun Madhuakar Sinha / Walgreens ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thewalgreens.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 3, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thewalgreens.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of March 30, 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@thewalgreens.com. Also on March 9, 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 March 31, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is an integrated pharmacy and healthcare retailer. It has rights in the WALGREENS mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the WALGREENS mark as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the word "the." Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer prescription medications without the requirement of a prescription, Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, and it registered the domain name in violation of Policy ¶ 2. Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It registered and is using the domain name for illegal purposes, passing off as Complainant and offering prescription drugs without the requirement of a prescription, it intentionally attempts to disrupt and compete with Complainant's business, and it registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The WALGREENS mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,057, 249) on January 25, 1977 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit B). Complainant's registration of its mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the WALGREENS mark. It fully incorporates the WALGREENS mark, merely adding the article "the" and the ".com" generic top-level domain (gTLD). Complainant's mark is easily recognizable in the domain name. Adding an article and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the WALGREENS mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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"). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1. Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because (i) it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer prescription medications without the requirement of a prescription, (ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, and (iii) it registered the domain name in violation of Policy ¶ 2. These allegations are addressed as follows: Complaint Exhibit F contains screenshots of the website resolving from the <thewalgreens.com> domain name as of February 27, 2026. It is sponsored by an entity named "Walgreens," giving an address in Pune, India. It displays a logo that does not appear on either of the screenshots of Complainant's website at <walgreens.com> submitted as Complaint Exhibits C and D. It offers numerous medications, including sildenafil and ivermectin. There is no evidence that the site sponsor requires a prescription for these or any of the other prescription medications offered for sale on this website. Complaint Exhibit E is a screenshot of a page on Respondent's website as of February 26, 2026, which advertises Glycoheal Metformin ER for sale and expressly states that it is not a prescription drug, notwithstanding that it is. The website does not duplicate or copy any of the pages on Complainant's website but there is nothing on Respondent's site to inform the visitor that it is not associated with Complainant, and by using Complainant's mark in both the entity name and the domain name it unquestionably implies an association with Complainant. Respondent is passing off as some kind of authorized affiliate of Complainant. Passing off as a complainant or authorized affiliate of a complainant and unlawfully offering to sell controlled substances without the requirement for a prescription does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."), A9.com, Inc. v. Jammy Right et al., FA 2075151 (Forum Jan. 5, 2024) ("Using a domain name to offer an illegal service such as the supply of prescription medications without a prescription is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated or connected with it and that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. Evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. The first of those names, Tarun Madhuakar Sinha, bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA 1571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel finds that Respondent Tarun Madhuakar Sinha has not been commonly known by the domain name. The second Respondent name, Walgreens, is identical to the domain name, suggesting that Respondent may have been commonly known by the domain name. This is not conclusive, however, because as discussed above Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark, and there is no evidence that Respondent has used the "Walgreens" name for any purpose other than to register the domain name and to impersonate Complainant. Complaint Exhibit G is a map showing the location of the street address given by the registrar for Respondent in Pune, India, showing that the business at that address is permanently closed. Even the address itself indicates that it is for a beauty parlor, not a pharmacy. Registering a domain name in a name that is similar or identical to the domain name is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent "has been commonly known by" it for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). There must be some evidence, independent of the registration and any resolving website, that the respondent used the name in a business or some other legitimate undertaking, or that persons have by other means come to associate the respondent with that name. If a person could acquire rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) by the simple expedient of registering it in a name similar or identical to the domain name, the purpose and intent of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) could easily be circumvented and the paragraph rendered essentially meaningless. Augusta National, Inc. v. Ryan Carey, FA 1758547 (Forum Dec. 21, 2017) ("If a respondent could acquire rights and legitimate interests in a domain name through Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) by the simple expedient of incorporating the complainant's mark into the name of his business entity, the intent and purpose of the Policy would be completely frustrated."), 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 Panel is satisfied that Respondent "Walgreens" has not been commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in part because it registered the domain in violation of Policy ¶ 2. This fact may be relevant in some other context but in and of itself would not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of no rights or legitimate interests. Policy ¶ 4(c) provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if it proves that any one of the three sets of circumstances listed in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) of ¶ 4(c) is present. Notwithstanding a violation of Policy ¶ 2, the complainant must still offer evidence on the three subparagraphs of Policy ¶ 4(c) in order to establish a prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Constructive notice does not prove actual knowledge. In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard. Respondent registered the domain name in October 2024 (WHOIS printout included in Complaint Exhibit F shows registration date). Complainant had by then been using the WALGREENS mark at least since the January 1977 registration date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for the mark included in Complaint Exhibit B. Complainant alleges that it has some 7,000 stores nationwide and that it is one of the largest retailers in the United States. In support it offered a printout of a Google search for Complainant (Complaint Exhibit I), which states among other things that Complainant has some 8,700 stores nationwide and is the second largest pharmacy chain in the United States. Further, the WALGREENS mark is unique, a coined term that, according to information in the Google search described above, is the surname of Complainant's founder. Further, Respondent is using the virtually identical domain and entity name to operate in the same market segment as Complainant and passes off as an affiliate of Complainant. It had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate it. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain name and selected it with the intent to target this Complainant. The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell many of the same types of products offered by Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those web site. Commercial gain is intended or results from the sale of goods from the website. Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith 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."). Finally, Respondent registered and is using the domain name to offer prescription medications without requiring prescriptions, which is unlawful in the United States and many other jurisdictions (FDA printout describing hallmarks of unsafe online pharmacy enterprises submitted as Complaint Exhibit J). Using a domain name for unlawful or illegal purposes also is evidence of bad faith registration and use. GLOCK, Inc. v. Active User / Mike Driz, et al., FA 2027941 (Forum Feb. 21, 2023) ("Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names for an illegal activity. Use of a disputed domain name for illegal activities evidences bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).... Here, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's offerings of illegal automatic conversions switches.... Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). For the reasons above set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thewalgreens.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist April 1, 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.