DECISION

 

Ruckus IP Holdings LLC v. Lei Shi

Claim Number: FA2403002090416

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ruckus IP Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Lei Shi ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <ruckuswirlessllc.com>, <ruckuswirelesslc.com> and <ruckuswirelesllc.com> ('the Domain Names'), registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 26, 2024; Forum received payment on March 26, 2024.

 

On March 27, 2024, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruckuswirlessllc.com>, <ruckuswirelesslc.com> and <ruckuswirelesllc.com> Domain Names are registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 Chinese and English 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@ruckuswirlessllc.com, postmaster@ruckuswirelesslc.com and postmaster@ruckuswirelesllc.com. Also on March 28, 2024, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On April 18, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Bearing in mind that the Domain Names are in English and point to  commercial pay per click sites in English and Respondent has been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings conducted in English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Panel decides that the proceedings should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns the trademark RUCKUS registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer related goods and services with first use recorded as 2005. 

 

The Domain Names registered in 2024 are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark containing it in its entirety and merely adding the generic term 'wireless' or a misspelling thereof, the letters 'llc' or 'lc' which could be interpreted as limited liability company or limited company, and the gTLD .com none of which prevents said confusing similarity between the Domain Names or any of them and Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and is not authorised by Complainant.

 

The Domain Names have been used to point to competing commercial pay per click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use.

 

It is bad faith registration and use. Respondent is using the Domain Names to resolve to confusing pay per click links offering competing services for commercial gain and causing disruption to Complainant's business.

 

Respondent has registered several domain names in this proceeding containing Complainant's mark and has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the Policy involving the trademarks of third parties.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the trademark RUCKUS registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer related goods and services with first use recorded as 2005.

 

The Domain Names registered in 2024 have been used to point to competing commercial pay per click links. Respondent has registered several domain names in this proceeding containing Complainant's mark and has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the Policy involving the trademarks of third parties.

 

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 Domain Names consist of Complainant's RUCKUS mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer related goods and services with first use recorded as 2005), the generic term 'wireless' or a misspelling thereof, the letters 'llc' or 'lc', and the gTLD .com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a complainant's mark or a misspelling thereof. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the complainant). Accordingly the Panel holds that the addition of the generic term 'wireless' or a misspelling thereof and the abbreviations 'llc' or 'lc' to Complainant's trademark in the Domain Names does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names or any of them and Complainant's mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names or any of them. See 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 use of the Domain Names is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.

 

The websites attached to the Domain Names point to commercial competing pay per click links. They do not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Vance Int'l Inc. v. Abend, FA 0970871 (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 non commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially benefitting from the click through fees).

 

Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names or any of them and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the Panelist the use made of the Domain Names in relation to Respondent's sites is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by Complainant as they use Complainant's mark for competing commercial pay per click links.

 

Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites or products or services offered on them likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Forum Mar. 21, 2006).

 

Complainant has registered several domain names in this proceeding containing Complainant's mark. Respondent has also been the subject of adverse rulings under the Policy involving third parties not connected to this Complaint. Accordingly there is sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations on the part of Respondent. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Ryan G Foo/PPA Media Services/Jinesh Shah/WhoIs Privacy Corp, FA 1576648 (Forum Jan 12, 2015) ("The Panel determines that Respondent's documented history of adverse UDRP rulings as well as Respondent's multiple registrations relating to Complainant's marks are independently sufficient to constitute a pattern as described by Policy 4 (b)(ii).").

 

As such, the Panelist believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv).

 

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 <ruckuswirlessllc.com>, <ruckuswirelesslc.com> and <ruckuswirelesllc.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: April 18, 2024