DECISION

 

Ruckus IP Holdings LLC v. Stephen Gray / Syniverse Holdings INc

Claim Number: FA2403002090105

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ruckus IP Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William D. Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Stephen Gray / Syniverse Holdings INc ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ruckuswirelessinc.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 March 25, 2024; Forum received payment on March 25, 2024.

 

On March 25, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruckuswirelessinc.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 March 28, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 2024 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@ruckuswirelessinc.com. Also on March 28, 2024, 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 send emails to the Forum, see blow. A third party also communicated with the Forum, see below.

 

On April 18, 2024, 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 Ruckus Networks (formerly known as Ruckus Wireless) started in 2002 with a focus on in-home IPTV content distribution over wireless networks. It designed an adaptive directional antenna technology, which was sold to other manufacturers to include in their products. Complainant acquired Ruckus Networks in 2017. CommScope acquired the Arris group in 2019. Complainant offers WiFi products such as indoor and outdoor access points, which have directional antenna technology and adjust to changes in radio frequency. Complainant asserts rights in the RUCKUS mark through its registration in the United States in 2013.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RUCKUS mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic/descriptive terms "wireless" and "inc" (which stands for "incorporated") and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name was redirected to Complainant's legitimate website.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. MX records have been configured for the disputed domain name, which may be intended for use in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. The WHOIS information is false: it lists the registrant as "Stephen Gray," who is a board member of Complainant's parent company, CommScope, however neither Mr Gray, nor Complainant, nor Commscope are in any way associated with the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (sic): "I buy domains randomly and sell them to highest bidder. I do not want any issues. Have them make me an offer to recoup my expense and i'm good. I do not intend to drag this along but i wouldn't loose my money as well. If they want to drag this along through this so call process, i will have to sell the domain to another third-party who might have the time for all this troubles." And: "I'm in no way affiliated to syniverse, i just create emails nd buy domains for profit purposes only, and as earlier stated i'm not interested in all this legal mumble jumble. Just make me a tiny offer for the domain and it'll be you yours same day."

 

In its emails to the Forum, the third party, Syniverse, states, in pertinent part: "Stephen Gray was the CEO of Syniverse from 2014-2018. Otherwise, the contents of the complaint seem wholly unrelated to Syniverse or our business. The [Syniverse] email address used in Exhibit 9 [email from Respondent] is not a legitimate Syniverse email address and we are in no way associated with the relevant domain name."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns rights in the mark RUCKUS dating back to 2013 and uses it to market WiFi products.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name was redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. The WHOIS information is false.

 

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.

 

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 a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's RUCKUS mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive terms "wireless" and "inc" (which stands for "incorporated"), together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Panels have held that the addition of a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms to a complainant's mark does not negate a finding of confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information lists "Stephen Gray / Syniverse Holdings INc" as registrant of record. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name redirected to Complainant's legitimate web site; it is hard to understand why this was done unless, as Complainant alleges, there was an intent to use the disputed domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Be that as it may, redirecting to Complainant's legitimate website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant's own website at <medline.com>). Thus the Panel finds Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. This constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. M D, FA 1878566 (Forum Feb. 14, 2020) ("Redirecting traffic to a complainant's website may constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, the WHOIS lists "Stephen Gray, Syniverse" as the registrant, but neither Mr Gray nor Syniverse (as Respondent itself states) are related to the registrant. Thus Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information, and this can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) ("Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration."); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) ("False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use."); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("Complainant's use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant's own website are further indications of such bad faith."); see also McDonald's Corp. v. Holy See, FA 155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) ("The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use."); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 97361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent's bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent 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 <ruckuswirelessinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 18, 2024