DECISION

 

CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Pushkar Khanal / Commscope Nepal

Claim Number: FA2509002176276

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Pushkar Khanal / Commscope Nepal ("Respondent"), Belgium.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <commscopenepal.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 September 10, 2025; Forum received payment on September 10, 2025.

 

On September 15, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <commscopenepal.com> 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 September 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@commscopenepal.com. Also on September 16, 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 September 16, 2025.

 

On September 16, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it provides communication products and services. With roots dating back to 1937, Complainant has played a role in virtually all of the world's best communication networks. It creates the infrastructure that connects people and technologies, including wired and wireless networks. Complainant was instrumental in creating cable TV infrastructure, the first wireless networks, the first data centers, and the first intelligent buildings. Today, Complainant offers a wide range of services under the COMMSCOPE mark, including, broadband solutions, enterprise solutions, and wireless solutions. Complainant has also used the COMMSCOPE mark in connection with a wide range of products, including antennas, cables, connectors, and networking systems, among others. Complainant has rights in the COMMSCOPE mark through its registration in the United States in 1994. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COMMSCOPE mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the geographical term "Nepal", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its COMMSCOPE mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COMMSCOPE mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states (emphasis added):

I would like to clarify that when I registered the domain, I intended to create a small communications and marketing consulting business in Nepal. I was not aware of your client's existing trademark rights at the time, and I had no intention of causing confusion or infringing upon CommScope's established brand.

 

I respect your client's intellectual property rights and would like to resolve this matter in an amicable manner. To avoid any dispute, I am willing to transfer the domain name CommScopeNepal.com to CommScope. Please let me know the preferred process to complete the transfer.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <commscopenepal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 17, 2025