DECISION

 

Auradine, Inc. v. amjol Smith / TechNova LLC

Claim Number: FA2506002162966

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Auradine, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Farah Bhatti of Buchalter, California, USA. Respondent is amjol Smith / TechNova LLC ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <auradine-teraflux.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025.

 

On June 28, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <auradine-teraflux.org> 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 June 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@auradine-teraflux.org. Also on June 30, 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 July 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant, founded in 2022, provides web infrastructure solutions focused on blockchain, security, and privacy. It has built consumer recognition and goodwill in the AURADINE and TERAFLUX trademarks through substantial investment and promotional efforts. Complainant has used the AURADINE trademark since at least 2022, and the TERAFLUX trademark since at least May 2023. Trademark applications for both marks have been filed with the USPTO, with Notices of Allowance issued on July 30, 2024. Complainant operates the <www.auradine.com> website, registered on October 27, 2021, which promotes its computer technology products and services under these marks. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AURADINE and TERAFLUX trademarks as the disputed domain fully incorporates both the AURADINE and TERAFLUX trademarks.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use Complainant's AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant's AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks are both well established in the computer infrastructure industry, as previously demonstrated by the acquired distinctiveness those marks have achieved. The conspicuous use of the AURADINE and TERAFLUX trademarks in the domain name suggests that Respondent actively intends to mislead consumers into believing that it is somehow officially connected or affiliated with Complainant. This attempt to misdirect Internet users based on confusion with Complainant's mark constitutes a textbook case of registration and use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2025.

 

2. Complainant filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 98021468 for the mark AURADINE on May 31, 2023, and a Notice of Allowance was issued on April 26, 2024.

 

3. Complainant filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 98078965 for the mark TERAFLUX on July 11, 2023, and a Notice of Allowance was issued on April 25, 2024.

 

4. Complainant has established common law rights in the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks, with priority rights dating from May 31, 2023, and July 11, 2023, respectively.

 

5. The disputed domain name remains inactive.

 

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

Complainant asserts common law rights in the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks. The Panel finds that Complainant filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 98021468 for the mark AURADINE on May 31, 2023, and a Notice of Allowance was issued on April 26, 2024; and that Complainant filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 98078965 for the mark TERAFLUX on July 11, 2023, and a Notice of Allowance was issued on April 25, 2024. 

 

The Panel further finds that Complainant has attained a consumer recognition in the industry in connection with the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks by virtue of widespread media coverage as evidenced by Complainant's exhibits. Complainant has demonstrated that it holds common law trademark rights in the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks, with priority rights dating from at least May 31, 2023, and July 11, 2023, respectively. Founded in 2022, Complainant offers scalable, sustainable, and secure infrastructure solutions for blockchain and AI technologies, and has consistently used the AURADINE mark since 2022 and the TERAFLUX mark since at least May 2023 in connection with its goods and services.

 

Complainant has invested significant resources in promoting the marks, resulting in substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. Its website, <www.auradine.com>, registered on October 27, 2021, actively markets its products and services under both marks. In particular, the TERAFLUX name has been used to promote proprietary technologies such as EnergyTune and FluxVision, which contribute to the distinctiveness of the mark in the relevant sector.

 

Complainant's team includes industry veterans with a proven record of delivering market-leading products, and its innovations have gained attention in both the blockchain and AI industries. Its ability to raise substantial investment, e.g., a $153 million Series C round, further reflects the commercial success and market presence associated with the marks.

 

The Panel also notes that Complainant's marks are rather unique and distinctive, and thus they do not require higher degree of consumer recognition unlike a generic or descriptive mark. See Universal Remanufacturing Co. LLC d/b/a Phoenix Chassis v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot and Domain Sales (expired domain caught by auction winner c/o Dynadot), D2022-3700 (WIPO December 23, 2022) (finding that under United States trademark law, the filing of an intent-to-use trademark application, subject to the mark being registered, constitutes constructive use of the mark and confers priority rights as of the date of the application's filing date. This mark has not yet been registered, and hence the "intent to use" application, by itself, may not be sufficient under the UDRP to recognize Complainant's trademark rights on that basis. Although the evidence presented is thin, the Panel finds it sufficient to recognize Complainant's common law trademark rights in PHOENIX CHASSIS in these circumstances, especially given the relatively low "standing" threshold for trademark rights under the first element of the UDRP.).

 

While Complainant's trademark applications for AURADINE and TERAFLUX were filed in 2023 and Notices of Allowance were issued in 2024, trademark rights under the Policy do not depend on registration. On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has acquired common law rights in the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks as of the claimed priority dates.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <auradine-teraflux.org> is confusingly similar to its AURADINE and TERAFLUX trademarks, as it incorporates both marks in their entirety. The Panel agrees. The combination of Complainant's two marks separated by a hyphen does not dispel the confusing similarity, nor does the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (".org"), which is typically disregarded for purposes of the first element analysis. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "amjol Smith / TechNova LLC" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel concurs. The passive holding of the disputed domain name, absent any demonstrable preparation to use it for a legitimate purpose, does not constitute use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the foregoing. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor otherwise sought to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel further observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that, in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must examine all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained only if those circumstances demonstrate that the respondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith).

 

In this case, the Panel has considered the following specific circumstances:

 

i) Complainant has attained considerable consumer recognition in the industry in connection with the AURADINE and TERAFLUX marks, as evidenced by widespread media coverage and supporting exhibits. Complainant has established common law trademark rights in both marks, with priority rights dating from at least May 31, 2023, and July 11, 2023, respectively. Since its founding in 2022, Complainant has continuously used the AURADINE mark, and since at least May 2023, the TERAFLUX mark, in connection with infrastructure solutions for blockchain and AI technologies.

 

Complainant has devoted significant resources to the promotion of the marks, resulting in substantial goodwill and market presence. Its website, <www.auradine.com>, registered on October 27, 2021, actively markets its proprietary technologies and services under both marks. Notably, the TERAFLUX mark has been used in connection with distinctive innovations, such as EnergyTune and FluxVision, which contribute to the mark's distinctiveness in the relevant commercial sector.

 

Complainant is led by a team of seasoned industry experts with a proven track record of delivering market-leading products. Its commercial success is further evidenced by its ability to secure substantial funding, including a $153 million Series C investment round.

 

ii) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name.

 

In view of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name, in the absence of any legitimate use or plausible explanation, constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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 <auradine-teraflux.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 24, 2025