Ab2c-medline.com

The timeline behind ab2c-medline.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. Indu Das Claim Number: FA2604002215541 PARTIES Complainant is Medline Industries, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illiois, USA. Respondent is Indu Das ("Respondent"), Mexico. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ab2c-medline.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 13, 2026; Forum received payment on April 13, 2026. On April 14, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 April 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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@ab2c-medline.com. Also on April 14, 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 April 15, 2026. On April 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent's <ab2c-medline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent registered the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name for someone else and consents to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant. FINDINGS Complainant offers healthcare supplies and holds a registration for its MEDLINE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 897,881, registered on September 1, 1970). Respondent registered the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name on March 9, 2026, and uses it to redirect users to a sign-in webpage that mimics Complainant's website. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MEDLINE mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Respondent's <ab2c-medline.com> domain name uses a slightly misspelled version of Complainant's MEDLINE mark and simply adds "ab2c-" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See A Place for Mom, Inc. v. Maria Kang, FA 1941435 (Forum May 13, 2021) (finding that the "addition of a letter and gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) ("[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <ab2c-medline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MEDLINE mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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 does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's MEDLINE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Indu Das". Moreover, Respondent did not claim to have rights in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a sign-in page that uses Complainant's mark, logo and color scheme and prompts users to sign in. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Chase Corporation v. Blanca Luna / Chase Corporation, FA 1993965 (Forum June 10, 2022) (the Panel, finding the resolving website that duplicates Complainant's mark and that features a User Login Page that requires users to submit potentially sensitive information qualifies as phishing). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name in bad faith by using it to redirect users to a sign-in page that mimics Complainant's website for Respondent's benefit. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Thomas Muller, FA 1768933 (Forum Feb. 26, 2018) (where respondent copied the look and feel of complainant's website, he "attempt[ed] to pass himself off as Complainant to phish for Complainant's user's personal information. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii)."); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Private Whois Service, FA 1328876 (Forum July 12, 2010) (finding Respondent use of Complainant's HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark in the <harleydavidsonmotorcyclejackets.com> domain name that featured Complainant's logo on the resolving website, and mimicked Complainant's distinctive black and orange color scheme was evidence of Respondent's clear intent to attract and mislead Complainant's consumers for Respondent's own commercial gain, which demonstrated bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <ab2c-medline.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MEDLINE mark. The Panel agrees, noting Complainant's use of the MEDLINE mark for more than 50 years, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Charter Commc'ns Holding Co. v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum Apr. 4, 2018) (finding bad faith registration of the domain name <charterspectrumonline.com> because "[a]ctual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Buff City Soap Holdings, LLC v. zheng zhou, FA 2110619 (Forum Sept. 4, 2024) (the panel inferred respondent's bad faith use and registration of the domain <buffcitysoapshop.com> due to the notoriety of complainant's trademark rights in BUFF CITY SOAP). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <ab2c-medline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: April 15, 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.