DECISION

 

Ascyrus Medical LLC v. Aleksei Raikerus

Claim Number: FA2606002224870

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ascyrus Medical LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Walter S. Freitag of Ascyrus Medical LLC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Aleksei Raikerus ("Respondent"), Estonia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ascyrus.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 466 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.

 

Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 3, 2026, DropCatch.com 466 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ascyrus.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 466 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 466 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 466 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 June 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@ascyrus.com. Also on June 8, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 29, 2026.

 

An Additional Submission from Complainant was received on June 30, 2026. The Additional Submission complied with Supplemental Rule 7, and shall be considered by the Panel in its decision below.

 

On June 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

- Complainant is based in the United States and markets the Ascyrus Stent, a prescription medical implant device used in open surgical repair of acute aortic dissections.

 

- Complainant conducts its business under the ASCYRUS MEDICAL trademark. Complainant's mark is well known within a very specialized market, and Complainant once owned the disputed domain name <ascyrus.com>, but that ownership lapsed inadvertently.

 

- The disputed domain name includes in full the distinctive first term of Complainant's trademark. The mere deletion of the second, common word of Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name and the addition of the ".com" general Top Level Domain ("gTLD") do not prevent a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and that mark.

 

- Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant and has not been licensed, authorized or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its trademark.

 

- Respondent has not been commonly known as the disputed domain name because "ascyrus" is a fanciful, coined term. Since the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and there is no evidence of any preparations to activate the disputed domain name, Respondent is not making "a bona fide offering of goods or services" nor "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" in connection with the disputed domain name.

 

- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: Respondent was aware or should have been aware of Complainant's distinctive trademark; Respondent passively holds the disputed domain name; Respondent concealed his identity through a privacy/proxy service; and Respondent failed to respond to Complainant's inquiries about reacquisition of the disputed domain name.

 

- Any use of the disputed domain name by Respondent would mislead Complainant's potential customers into believing that such use is authorized or associated with Complainant's actual services. This could involve significant, unfortunate consequences for the public, since Complainant's services involve life-saving medical care.

 

- The disputed domain name has commercial value only because it relates directly to Complainant's distinctive trademark and was used by Complainant for nearly ten years to impart life-saving information.

 

B. Respondent

- The disputed domain name, <asycrus.com>, is clearly not identical to Complainant's ASYCRUS MEDICAL trademark, as the second term of that mark is entirely absent from the disputed domain name. Complainant cannot claim control of every separate element of its trademark under the Policy.

 

- As Respondent recently acquired the disputed domain name on February 5, 2026, Respondent has been unable to fully develop a website connected with the disputed domain name for his planned provision of independent technology consulting and infrastructure services. The disputed domain name would allow for a distinctive name related to those services

 

- Upon acquisition of the disputed domain name, Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant's trademark and in no way intended to target it. Respondent was also unaware of Complainant's medical services because Respondent and Complainant operate in completely different commercial spheres.

 

- A finding of bad faith under the Policy cannot rely solely on the inactivity of a disputed domain name or the existence of a trademark.

 

- Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking in filing the Complaint against Respondent.

 

C. Complainant's Additional Submission

- Respondent's claim regarding his demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate commercial services is unsupported by clear reasonable evidence.

 

- Respondent's argument in favor of a Reverse Domain Hijacking finding is flawed.

 

FINDINGS

A USA company that was founded in 2015, Complainant has offered since 2020 the use of a medical stent device that connects with the surgical repair of acute aortic conditions. Those services have been provided under the trademark ASCYRUS MEDICAL, which Complainant registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Registration No. 6075051; registered June 9, 2020; international class 010 for medical stent delivery systems).

 

The disputed domain name, <ascyrus.com>, was acquired by Respondent on February 5, 2026. The disputed domain name is not currently attached to a website that is used for any purpose.

 

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 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

Having provided clear evidence of the registration of its ASCYRUS MEDICAL trademark with the USPTO, Complainant has convinced the Panel that Complainant's ownership rights thereof per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) have been satisfied. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)."); see also Time Warner Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1585358 (Forum Dec. 10, 2014) ("Complainant's USPTO registrations satisfactorily evidence the required Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) rights in the marks.").

 

Clearly, the disputed domain name, <ascyrus.com>, does not contain Complainant's full ASCYRUS MEDICAL trademark. However, the Panel notes that the more distinct of the two terms found within that mark, "ascyrus," is fully included in the disputed domain name. Thus, as the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD within the disputed domain is irrelevant in a comparison under the Policy, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7 ("...in cases where [...] at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark."); see also Pipes & Shaw, LLC d/b/a Veronica Beard v. Yanyan3 Wang, D2022-4805 (WIPO Feb. 24, 2023) ("The Domain Name incorporates Complainant's VERONICA BEARD trademark in its first and dominant part.").  

 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires that a complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name before the burden of production shifts to that respondent to demonstrate that it does possess rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy paragraph 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.").  In the present case, Complainant has convinced the Panel of that prima facie case, as the disputed domain name has been found to be confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark and Complainant has contended reasonably that Respondent is not authorized or licensed by Complainant to use that mark.

 

To counter Complainant's successful prima facie case, Respondent asserts that he is involved in preparations to make "a bona fide offering of services" in conjunction with the disputed domain name in compliance with Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). Respondent claims that he will provide independent technology consulting and infrastructure services for profit through a website attached to the disputed domain name. However, Respondent has presented no clear evidence, such as documented expenses, personnel hiring, comprehensive back-up documents, etc., to sustain his burden of proving to the Panel that his claim above is true. As a result, the Panel cannot find that Respondent meets the requirements of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2 ("If not independently verifiable by the panel, claimed [...] demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be merely self-serving but should be inherently credible and supported by other relevant pre-complaint evidence."); and Bruichladdich Distillery Company Limited v. Johannes Iga Schneemann, D2014-0168 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2014) ("... the Respondent has not substantiated with material evidence its allegations under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy regarding its preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services...").

 

With respect to Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) and paragraph 4(c)(iii), Respondent has provided the Panel with no evidence that he has been "commonly known by the disputed domain name" or has plans for a "legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name." Therefore, the Panel concludes that those paragraphs of the Policy also fail to apply in this case.

 

As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

There are four non-exclusive circumstances listed in Policy paragraph 4(b) that support findings of bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name, but the Panel is not limited to those circumstances in determining whether sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use exists. See Advanta Corp. v. St. Kitts Registry, FA 1068741 (Forum Oct. 18, 2007) ("The Panel finds that the factors listed under Policy paragraph 4(b) are not the exclusive examples of evidence of bad faith registration and use.").

 

In contending that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, Complainant has implicitly cited Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) in arguing that any use of the disputed domain name by Respondent would mislead Complainant's potential customers into believing incorrectly that such use is authorized or associated with Complainant's actual services. However, the Panel does not believe that it can issue a ruling based upon a mere assumption put forth by Complainant and not clear evidence that Respondent is actually now using the disputed domain in the misleading manner suggested by Complainant.

 

Complainant does assert correctly that the disputed domain name is inactive, which in some prior Policy decisions has led to findings of bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) ("...it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.").

 

The Panel notes that WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3 lists certain circumstances that would be relevant in assessing whether non-use of a disputed domain name constituted bad faith registration and use thereof:

 

Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent's registration agreement).

 

While Respondent has submitted a Response in this case, Complainant asserts that its trademark bears a very distinct element, ASCYRUS, that its trademark and products are well-known in international medical circles, and that Respondent is concealing his identity with a privacy/proxy service. The Panel finds that the evidence presented does validate these assertions, and thus, combined with Respondent's current non-use of the disputed domain name, Complainant has provided a sufficient argument to affirm that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

Dennis A. Foster, Panelist

Dated: July 13, 2026