DECISION

 

Arris Enterprises LLC v. Shohel / Bangla Soft Computer

Claim Number: FA2603002212430

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Arris Enterprises LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Shohel / Bangla Soft Computer ("Respondent"), Bangladesh.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <auroranetcn.com>, registered with Sav.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 25, 2026; Forum received payment on March 25, 2026.

 

On March 26, 2026, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <auroranetcn.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, 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 March 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 15, 2026 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@auroranetcn.com. Also on March 26, 2026, 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 April 16, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademarks rights in AURORA and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it has not been authorized to use the trademark and does it use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Respondent created the domain name long after establishment of Complainant's trademark rights and points the domain name to a website which offers the same services as those provided by Complainant under the trademark.

  

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and used it in bad faith for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides communications products and services and is the registered owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,678,453, registered from September 8, 2009, for a composite mark described later ("Registration"); and

2.       Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 10, 2023, using a privacy service to mask its identity and then pointed the domain name to a website offering network access solutions.

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. 

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). The Registration is for a mark described on the USPTO register as "consisting of the words AURORA NETWORKS in stylized form, and to the left of the wording, a square containing a stylized representation of the aurora borealis."   The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in that mark.

 

The Complaint states that:

 

"[i]n addition to the foregoing registration, [Complainant] owns the common law mark as used in connection with a wide range of other goods and services as displayed on the website www.vistancenetworks.com. The foregoing AURORA registered and common law trademarks are hereinafter jointly referred to as the 'AURORA Marks'."

 

There are no "AURORA Marks" as such. Putting aside whether there is sufficient proof of the common law trademark claim, the referenced website refers at every instance to "Aurora Networksä ". Likewise, the Registration is not for the word mark, AURORA, nor a stylized iteration of that single work. Instead, the composite mark already described opens the question asked at #1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"): "How are trademark registrations with design elements or disclaimed text treated in assessing identity or confusing similarity?"¹

 

"… To the extent that design (or figurative/stylized) elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are largely disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element. … panels would tend to focus on the non-design elements for purposes of assessing confusing similarity.

It follows that, whether based on the Registration, or on Complainant's putative common law trademark claim, the relevant comparison is that of AURORA NETWORKS with the disputed domain name. Complainant's submission is that "addition of the terms 'net' and 'cn' only adds to the confusion because [Complainant's] main products are network solutions, which are often described as "net" products or products for the net (short for network(s)). The 'cn' portion will lead consumers to believe the Domain Name is connected to a Chinese branch of Aurora Networks."

 

Albeit that "net" might likely to perceived as shorthand for "internet", the Panel accepts that both it and "cn" are non-distinctive, but the proper question in the circumstances is whether, ignoring the gTLD, the domain name is confusingly similar to AURORA NETWORKS. The Panel finds confusing similarity because the domain name truncates, but leaves recognisable, the trademark, merely adding a commonly understood country designation (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) holding that the gTLD can be disregarded, and Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) and others like it where it was held that "[w]here a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")).  

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no trademark rights and the Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark. The use of the domain name, as described above, is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Subparagraph 4(b)(iv), on which Complainant relies, describes registration and use in bad faith when:

 

        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Complainant submits that "[t]he sole purpose of Respondent's use of the Domain Name is to capitalize on … consumer deception to commercially gain from driving visitors to the fake site". … Further, the evidence shows Respondent has acted in this matter against multiple brand owners."

 

If the Panel understands the submission correctly, the evidence does not appear to show Respondent's behaviour towards other brand owners.   Instead, the evidence shows defects with the resolving site which otherwise mimics Complainant's own site. Complainant observes, too, that tucked away in the text is the statement: "Please note that this is a fictional company created for illustrative purposes, and any resemblance to actual companies is purely accidental."   There are no submissions on that matter, nor need there be since #3.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1states that:

 

"… where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent's bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith. In such cases, panels may consider the respondent's use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused."

 

In terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. There are no submissions on the point, but the Panel finds that the resolving website most likely exists for commercial gain in one form or another, the exact mode being unimportant. Further, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and the products promoted there (see, for example, Oura Health Oy v. Andreas Neunhaeuserer / Label Products BV, FA 2155522 (Forum June 6, 2025).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <auroranetcn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: April 16, 2026