DECISION
Nutanix, Inc. v. Domain Admin / HugeDomains.com
Claim Number: FA2507002167865
PARTIES
Complainant is Nutanix, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Allen J. Baden, Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / HugeDomains.com ("Respondent"), represented by Megan Long, Colorado, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nutanx.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 1064 LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certify 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.
Alan L. Limbury and The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelists and Fernando Triana as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 25, 2025. Forum received payment on July 25, 2025.
On July 29, 2025, DropCatch.com 1064 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nutanx.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 1064 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 1064 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 1064 LLC 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 July 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 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@nutanx.com. Also on July 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 19, 2025.
On August 19, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury and The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelists and Fernando Triana as Chair.
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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
a. Complainant is a publicly traded cloud computing company that sells software, cloud services and software-defined storage, all under the trademark NUTANIX.
b. Complainant has a worldwide presence with over 65 offices. Complainant's annual revenues exceed $2.4 billion, and it employs more than 7100 workers.
c. Complainant owns the domain name <nutanix.com> first registered on September 20, 2009, on which it hosts its website, www.nutanix.com.
d. The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant's trademark.
e. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NUTANIX trademark.
f. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
g. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's trademark NUTANIX.
h. There is no evidence that Respondent is known by the disputed domain name.
i. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
j. The disputed domain name is listed as for sale which shows neither a bona fide offering of goods nor services under the Policy.
B. Respondent
a. The disputed domain name was lawfully registered and is part of Respondent's legitimate, long-standing portfolio of brandable domain names.
b. Complainant's trademark NUTANIX is not identical, nor confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
c. Respondent is a bona fide domain reseller. The acquisition and holding of valuable domain names for resale constitutes a legitimate business.
d. The disputed domain name has never been used to refer to or target Complainant.
e. The disputed domain name was simply listed for sale as part of Respondent's publicly available inventory, consistent with routine business operations.
f. Complainant has failed to show that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith.
g. There is no evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent of targeting Complainant and its trademark.
h. Respondent did not initiate contact with Complainant, did not attempt to sell the domain name to Complainant, and has not used the domain name to redirect or harm Complainant's business.
i. Respondent registered the disputed domain name as part of a generalized business model that targets short, brandable names across the tech, health, financial, and consumer sectors.
j. The term "Nutan" has legitimate meaning and usage across diverse industries and regions.
FINDINGS
1. Complainant has established rights in the trademark NUTANIX based on the international registration No. 1099915 in international class 9, dated November 16, 2011, in Germany, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Japan, Denmark, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Croatia, Latvia, France, Hungary, Sweden, Singapore, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK, Irelan, Estonia, Malta, European Union, China, Greece, Italy, Spain, Austria, Australia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and the Netherlands.
2. Respondent has established that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts rights in the mark NUTANIX based on the international registration No. 1099915 in international class 9, dated November 16, 2011.
a) Existence of a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
Firstly, it is important to point out that Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the existence of a trademark or a service mark.
When a sign is registered as a trademark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctiveness, and the owner is granted an exclusive right over the mark, which entitles him to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.
In this case, Complainant proved its rights in the trademark NUTANIX in international class 9.
This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant's ownership of the cited trademark and the exclusive right to use it in connection with the stated goods. The registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademark NUTANIX for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
b) Identity or confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainants trademark
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark NUTANIX.
In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name <nutanx.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark NUTANIX, the Panel points out that the addition of a gTLD, i.e., ".com, as in the present case, or ".biz," ".vip," ".org," ".net" or ".online," is generally disregarded when determining if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") at section 1.11.
Hence, the inclusion of the gTLD in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights.
Furthermore, the Panel by a majority considers that the reproduction of the trademark NUTANIX, with the exclusion of one letter, or intentional misspelling of the disputed domain name <nutanx.com>, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") at section 1.19. Especially since Complainant's trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds by a majority that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark and thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.
Panelist Brown does not agree with that conclusion and would find that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the trademark. It is similar, but it is not confusingly so, as it cannot be said on the balance of probabilities that internet users would see the domain name as confusingly similar to the trademark and that they would therefore be confused. The disputed domain name does not entirely reproduce the trademark. Moreover, if the difference were simply that there was a minor difference in spelling with, for example, a singular in the trademark but a plural in the domain name, or vice versa , the domain name would probably be confusingly similar to the trademark, but in the present case the domain name seems to be essentially different to and distinctive from the trademark. In that regard, the domain name seems to invoke a specific brand, the dominant feature of which is known as "NUTAN", a word that stands easily on its own both visually and phonetically. Moreover, the presence of "x" in the domain name may well connote to internet users that it is new and thus different from the trademark, as it adopts the new practice of branding by adding to the name of enterprises, especially in high-tech fields, an "X", as in the new branding of Twitter to "X" and its use in brands such as Space X1, Cloud (X)2 and Gen X3. The domain name is also phonetically different from the trademark. The issue is not entirely free from doubt, but the panel must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and as there are several features that may well distinguish the domain name from the trademark in the minds of internet users, that burden of proof has not been met.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant failed to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Complainant also failed to prove Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests.
Moreover, the Panel notes that, while Respondent does not deny that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, it has shown that its business is operating as a domain name reseller and it has been held on many prior occasions that a registrant in that position may well have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The Panel finds that Respondent's evidence is persuasive on the issue of rights and legitimate interests. Accordingly, Complainant has not succeeded on this element of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Although it is unnecessary to proceed further in analyzing the registration and use in bad faith, as Complainant failed to establish the lack of rights or legitimate interest, it is important to point out that Complainant did not provide any evidence to support its submission that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
As for the use, the mere inactivity of the disputed domain name is not enough to establish bad faith.
Accordingly, Complainant has not succeeded in proving Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Panel has not found it easy to reach a conclusion on this issue. On the one hand, the majority of the Panel has found that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. On the other hand, the panel has unanimously found that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel has also found unanimously that there was no evidence offered by the Complainant that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith and its submissions to that effect were largely based on conjecture.
On balance, the Panel finds that although it transpired that the Complainant's case was weak, it was not harassment or bad faith to initiate the proceeding. The Panel therefore declines to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
On balance, the Panel finds that the Complaint was not brought in bad faith, in an instance of reverse domain name hijacking.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nutanx.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Fernando Triana, Esq., Chair
Dated: September 9, 2025
[1] See https://www.spacex.com/
[2] See https://cloudx.com/
[3] See https://www.genxcpllc.com/introduction
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page