DECISION

 

CommScope North Carolina, LLC v. Kazuyuki Ochiai

Claim Number: FA2608002240337

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CommScope North Carolina, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Kazuyuki Ochiai ("Respondent"), Japan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <comscope.xyz> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on August 18, 2026; Forum received payment on August 18, 2026.

 

On August 18, 2026, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <comscope.xyz> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 19, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Japanese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@comscope.xyz. Also on August 20, 2026, the Japanese and English 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.

 

On August 21, 2026, Forum received an e-mail from Respondent, in English, consenting to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. Forum treated the e-mail as correspondence; the Panel considers it as a preliminary issue below.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Japanese and English.

 

On September 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is Japanese. Under Rule 11(a) that is the language of the proceeding unless the Panel determines otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed the Complaint in English, without translation, and asks that the proceeding be conducted in English.

 

In deciding such a request the Panel weighs fairness to both parties against the need for an expeditious and inexpensive proceeding, considering whether the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name and of its resolving content, and the burden and delay that translation would impose. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.5. Here the Disputed Domain Name is composed of Latin characters and misspells Complainant's English-language mark and website address; the page to which it resolved was in English; Forum served the Written Notice in Japanese and English; and Respondent, far from objecting, answered Forum's Japanese-language commencement e-mail in competent English. Translation would burden Complainant and delay the proceeding, without benefit to a Respondent who has shown a working command of English and does not contest the Complaint. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. İsa Tanıtmış, FA 2020270 (Forum Dec. 17, 2022) (English adopted over a Turkish registration agreement where the domain name, in English words, mirrored the complainant's English-language website address). The Panel determines that English is the language of this proceeding.

 

CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent's e-mail received by Forum on August 21, 2026 is uncertified, engages with none of the allegations, and is not a Response within Rule 5. Under Rule 10 the Panel has nonetheless admitted it to the record for what it is: an unconditional consent to transfer. Respondent has stated that it does not wish to contest the Complaint, and the September 9, 2026 deadline has passed without a Response.

 

A panel may give effect to such a consent and order a transfer without reaching the merits. Panels have also recognized that a consent to transfer can be the means by which a registrant avoids adverse findings, and have decided such cases under the Policy. See Coulter Ventures, LLC d/b/a Rogue Fitness v. Justin Wood, FA 2017532 (Forum Nov. 7, 2022) (deciding the merits notwithstanding a consent to transfer, a device by which cybersquatters may escape adverse findings); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. David Espinoza, FA 1958096 (Forum Aug. 31, 2021) (deciding the merits, the complainant not having agreed to a transfer without a decision).

 

The Panel takes the latter course. Complainant has not joined in any request for a transfer by consent, and its silence is not read as agreement to a disposition without findings. Respondent's consent is given without admitting the allegations, and for the second time in a proceeding brought by a CommScope company; a transfer on those terms would again leave the conduct complained of unexamined. The Complaint is decided on its merits.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it owns the COMMSCOPE family of trademarks, including four United States registrations for COMMSCOPE (the "COMMSCOPE Mark"); that it has used the mark continuously since at least as early as 1969 and registered <commscope.com> in 1994; and that, through a business with roots dating to 1937, industry awards, and its website and social-media presence, the COMMSCOPE Mark is distinctive and widely recognized.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <comscope.xyz> is confusingly similar to the COMMSCOPE Mark, reproducing it with a single letter "m" omitted, a common misspelling that adds to the likelihood of confusion, the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") being no distinguishing feature; and that a Google search for "comscope" returns results for "commscope."

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use it for a bona fide offering of goods or services, has placed no content at it beyond a landing page indicating that the name is registered but may be available, is not commonly known by it, has no license or permission from Complainant, and makes no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith: COMMSCOPE is a coined term with no meaning other than as Complainant's mark, so that Respondent registered a typographical variant of it with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights; Respondent's failure to make any active use of it is itself bad faith; the typosquatting of Complainant's own domain name diverts mistyped traffic and disrupts Complainant's business; and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration, having earlier registered <ampnetconnect.xyz>, which a prior Forum panel ordered transferred on Respondent's consent.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. By e-mail received by Forum on August 21, 2026, Respondent wrote: "I do not wish to contest the Complaint. Without admitting the allegations in the Complaint, I unconditionally consent to the transfer of <comscope.xyz> to the Complainant at no cost." The e-mail is addressed in the Preliminary Issue section above.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

The USPTO records in evidence show that Complainant owns four live registrations for the COMMSCOPE Mark. The earliest, U.S. Reg. No. 1,865,198, registered November 29, 1994 and since renewed, covers communications cable and cable connectors and claims first use in commerce on December 1, 1993. Three further registrations, issued between 2012 and 2018, extend the mark to wireless-infrastructure components and installation tools and protect it in stylized form. Each names Complainant as owner. COMMSCOPE is a coined term, and the record discloses no meaning for it apart from Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant asserts use of the COMMSCOPE Mark since at least 1969, citing its registrations; those claim first use in 1993 and 1996, and nothing else in the record speaks to 1969. The Panel makes no finding to that effect. A WHOIS record shows that Complainant's <commscope.com> domain name was created on February 10, 1994; printouts of Complainant's website describe a business in fiber, copper, and wireless network infrastructure; and press releases record awards from the North Carolina Technology Association in 2015 and 2016. The record contains no sales, advertising, or traffic figures. On this evidence the Panel finds the COMMSCOPE Mark to be a distinctive coined mark, registered in the United States since 1994 and, as its renewals and the website and press materials in the record show, in use by Complainant throughout the period since.

 

The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on August 15, 2026, three days before the Complaint was filed, that the registration data then published identified only the Registrar's privacy service, and that its name servers are at afternic.com. The Registrar's verification of August 18, 2026 discloses Respondent, Kazuyuki Ochiai of Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan, as the registrant and confirms that the registration agreement is in Japanese.

 

A screenshot captured August 17, 2026 shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to no content of Respondent's own but to a parking page served by GoDaddy, stating "This domain is registered, but may still be available" and inviting the visitor to "Get this domain." Nothing in the record evidences any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name since its registration. A Google search for "comscope" run the same day returned results for "commscope," those shown all relating to CommScope.

 

A prior proceeding under the Policy, brought before Forum by Commscope Technologies LLC against Respondent concerning <ampnetconnect.xyz>, concluded on October 10, 2025 with an order transferring that domain name on Respondent's consent, without findings under the Policy. See Commscope Technologies LLC v. Kazuyuki Ochiai, FA 2176914 (Forum Oct. 10, 2025).

 

On the uncontested record, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the COMMSCOPE Mark, and nothing suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Respondent's e-mail of August 21, 2026, quoted above, consents unconditionally to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name without admitting the allegations of the Complaint.

 

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 formal 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 Overview 3.1 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 has established rights in the COMMSCOPE Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registrations with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the COMMSCOPE Mark with its second "m" omitted and adds the gTLD ".xyz." The resulting string is pronounced identically to the mark and differs from it visually by one character; the mark remains recognizable within it, and a domain name consisting of such a misspelling is confusingly similar to the mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.9; Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Ab cd, FA 2217782 (Forum May 20, 2026) (a domain name differing from the INGRAMSPARK mark only by the substitution of one letter for another is confusingly similar); Havtech Group, LLC v. Goldsmith, Garrett, FA 2094713 (Forum May 22, 2024) (a one-letter variant of the HAVTECH mark, having no aural and little visual distinction from it, is confusingly similar). The gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the COMMSCOPE Mark under 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, at which point the burden of production shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

That case is made out. The registrant disclosed by the Registrar, Kazuyuki Ochiai, bears no resemblance to "comscope," Complainant has given Respondent no license or permission, and no other basis appears on which Respondent could be commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Edouard Ambrosio, FA 2162707 (Forum July 24, 2025) (no rights under ¶ 4(c)(ii) where the WHOIS identified an unrelated individual who had no authorization from the complainant).

 

Nor does the record disclose any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); it has resolved only to a third party's parking page. See Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. David Leo / cardinalhealthlabs, FA 2225142 (Forum June 26, 2026) (an inactive domain name resolving to a parked page shows, without more, no bona fide offering of goods or services). Respondent, having declined to contest the Complaint, has offered nothing to the contrary.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COMMSCOPE Mark. The mark is a coined term, registered in the United States since 1994, the year Complainant also registered its <commscope.com> domain name; the string Respondent chose differs from both by one letter readily dropped in typing, and no reason for choosing "comscope" other than its resemblance to COMMSCOPE appears from the record. And the proceeding over <ampnetconnect.xyz>, brought by a CommScope company, had concluded ten months earlier, so that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with recent and direct notice both of CommScope and of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.2.2; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Erin Millercan, FA 2113874 (Forum Oct. 3, 2024) (a coined mark with no meaning apart from its association with the complainant is not likely to be selected for a domain name by anyone else except to target the complainant).

 

Registering a domain name that reproduces a mark with a small typographical error, so as to capture Internet users who mistype the mark owner's address, is itself evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) being illustrative rather than exhaustive. See Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang / Zhichao, FA 2098406 (Forum June 14, 2024) (incorporating a mark with small typographical errors is typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). The Disputed Domain Name is such a typosquat.

 

As to use, the Disputed Domain Name has never resolved to any content of Respondent's own. Non-use does not prevent a finding of bad faith use where, in the totality of the circumstances, no good-faith use by the respondent is plausible. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.3. Those circumstances are present here: a misspelling of a distinctive coined mark, registered through a privacy service by a Respondent already on notice of the Policy, who has chosen to consent to transfer rather than explain the registration. See Morgan Stanley v. Dari Darling, FA 1965150 (Forum Oct. 27, 2021) (a domain name that does not resolve to an active website supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Complainant also relies on Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The earlier proceeding ended in a transfer on consent, without findings, and that consent is not itself a finding of bad faith. The sequence of which it forms a part is another matter. Within a year Respondent has twice registered, through the same Registrar, a domain name that a CommScope company has had to pursue under the Policy, and each time, once a Complaint was brought, has consented to transfer without admitting or explaining anything. The Panel does not regard that as chance or coincidence. Two registrations directed at the same family of marks, each surrendered as soon as it was challenged, evidence a pattern of registering domain names that prevent the mark owner from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names, within Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); and a consent to transfer repeated in that way is, in the Panel's view, further evidence of bad faith, not a circumstance that neutralizes it. The record does not show Respondent to be a competitor of Complainant within ¶ 4(b)(iii). And although the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page inviting visitors to acquire it, the record contains no offer of sale communicated to Complainant and no price sought, and the Panel makes no finding under ¶ 4(b)(i). Bad faith is established on the grounds stated above.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <comscope.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

                

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2026