DECISION

 

Ruckus IP Holdings LLC v. selva kumar / geson associates

Claim Number: FA2501002134423

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ruckus IP Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota. USA. Respondent is selva kumar / geson associates ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ruckusnetwork.tech>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2025; Forum received payment on January 9, 2025.

 

On January 10, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruckusnetwork.tech> 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 January 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2025 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@ruckusnetwork.tech. Also on January 13, 2025, 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 February 4, 2025, 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 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Ruckus IP Holdings is the owner of the RUCKUS trademark used in connection with wireless access and computer products. Ruckus has used the RUCKUS mark in commerce continuously since at least as early as 2005. Additionally, Ruckus is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark RUCKUS in the United States.

 

Respondent registered the domain name <ruckusnetwork.tech> on or about December 28, 2024. Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to Ruckus' RUCKUS marks, or in the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the RUCKUS mark or any derivative mark for any purpose.

 

The evidence shows the domain name was registered to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant's RUCKUS Marks and to divert traffic away from Complainant's own websites. There is no reason to register a domain name that combines the RUCKUS mark with the term "network" other than to trade on the rights of Complainant.

 

Respondent has never placed any information on the website associated with the at-issue domain name. Respondent's lack of associating the domain name with any website shows that it does not have a legitimate right to the name. Respondent's registration of the name trades on Complainant's goodwill associated with its RUCKUS mark and disrupts Complainant's business in diverting traffic away from Complainant's legitimate sites.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The Domain Name contains Complainant's entire RUCKUS mark and is confusingly similar to the RUCKUS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The addition of a top-level domain to a mark is also not a distinguishing feature. Further, the addition of the term "network" does not serve to distinguish the domain name from RUCKUS.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not have a bona fide interest in the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) in that it failed to place any content on the website associated with the domain name. Respondent does not list content on the site other than the registrar's landing page. Respondent also has no legitimate rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) in that it is not commonly known by the mark and has not received Complainant's permission to use the RUCKUS mark. Respondent is also not using the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because it has placed no content on the site.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent's failure to make active use of the domain name shows bad faith. The facts show that Respondent registered <ruckusnetwork.tech> because it knew Complainant had goodwill in the name. There is no other meaning to the word RUCKUS than Complainant's RUCKUS brand. Adding the term "network" to the RUCKUS only serves to add to the confusion because consumers are more likely to believe that the domain name is associated with Complainant because Complainant offers technology services related to networks under the RUCKUS mark. Respondent's diversion of traffic to a non-used landing page also shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Additional evidence of bad faith can be inferred from Respondent's choosing to use a designation that it knows to be similar to another's registered trademark in order to attract consumers to its website. Respondent is nevertheless able to use the domain name to deliver email.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the RUCKUS mark.

 

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in RUCKUS.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.

 

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 at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Any of Complainant's registrations for its RUCKUS mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority); see also, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).

 

The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's RUCKUS trademark followed by the suggestive term "network" and with all followed by the ".tech" top-level domain name. The differences between <ruckusnetwork.tech> and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's RUCKUS mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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.

 

The WHOIS information for <ruckusnetwork.tech> reveals that "selva kumar – geson associates" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that suggests that Respondent is otherwise known by the <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).

 

Respondent holds its <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name passively. Browsing to the domain name returns a holding page lacking any substantive content. Notably, the domain name's failure to host content does not indicate that Respondent's used <ruckusnetwork.tech> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or has made a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <ruckusnetwork.tech>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent's <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name is inactive as browsing to the domain name returns a mere holding page apparently installed by the domain name's registrar. Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use."). 

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in RUCKUS when it registered <ruckusnetwork.tech> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's RUCKUS trademark and the lack of any conceivable reasonable explanation justifying Respondent's registration of <ruckusnetwork.tech>. Respondent's registration and passive holding of the confusingly similar <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in RUCKUS further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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).

 

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 <ruckusnetwork.tech> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2025