Arris Enterprises LLC v. jiek wang
Claim Number: FA2305002044810
Complainant is Arris Enterprises LLC (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is jiek wang (“Respondent”), Virgin Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ruckusnetworks.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 16, 2023; Forum received payment on May 16, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruckusnetworks.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 18, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 2023 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@ruckusnetworks.us. Also on May 18, 2023, 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 June 8, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Arris Enterprises LLC, offers WiFi products.
Complainant has rights in the RUCKUS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s RUCKUS mark as it incorporates the mark while adding the descriptive word “networks” and the “.us” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its RUCKUS mark in the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes off as Complainant while diverting users and tricking them into visiting advertising links.
Respondent registered and uses the <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant while attracting users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RUCKUS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the RUCKUS mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the RUCKUS trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant’s genuine website and contains advertising links.
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 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for its RUCKUS mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s RUCKUS trademark followed by the term “networks” and with all followed by the “.us” top level domain name. The differences between <ruckusnetworks.us> and Complainant’s RUCKUS trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RUCKUS trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
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 the at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “jiek wang” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <ruckusnetworks.us>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.).
Additionally, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant’s genuine website and containing links to third party advertisements. Respondent’s use of <ruckusnetworks.us> in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business)’ see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
Given the forgoing, Complainant demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present that allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent registered and uses <ruckusnetworks.us> to address a website mimicking Complainant’s website. Thereby, Respondent passes itself off as Complainant so as to attract internet traffic to such website. Respondent’s <ruckusnetworks.us> website also contains links to advertisements. Notably, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) 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.”); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RUCKUS mark when it registered <ruckusnetworks.us> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s mark; from Respondent’s inclusion of the suggestive term “networks” in the at-issue domain name; and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to mimic Complainant’s genuine website. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in RUCKUS shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ruckusnetworks.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page