Aristanetworksinc.com

The timeline behind aristanetworksinc.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Arista Networks Inc. v. corp inc, margavet mcmillan Case No. D2026-1316 1. The Parties Complainant is Arista Networks Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by 101domain.com, United States. Respondent is corp inc, margavet mcmillan, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <aristanetworksinc.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2026. On March 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 29, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 30, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 3, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 27, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 28, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Founded in 2004, Complainant provides technological products and software solutions for monitoring and network detection and response worldwide, through their primary websites, “arista.com” and “aristanetworks.com”. Complainant’s company has over a dozen offices and delivers its computer networking services to its customers located across six continents. Complainant’s domain name <arista.com>, was registered on July 6, 1998. Complainant owns several registered trademarks in various jurisdictions, including: - European Union registered trademark number 008473721 for the ARISTA word mark, registered on February 1, 2010; - European Union registered trademark number 018143714 for the ARISTA NETWORKS word mark, registered on May 22, 2020; and - United States registered trademark number 4,893,674 for the ARISTA word mark, registered on January 26, 2016, with a first use date in 2008. Complainant also owns and operates its primary website at the domain name <aristanetworks.com>, which was registered in 2008 and maintains over 200 domain names consisting of variations of the trademarked terms ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS, including <arista-networks.com>, <arista-inc.com>, and <aristanetowrks.com>. The Domain Name was registered on November 1, 2025, and redirected to Complainant’s primary website, <aristanetworks.com>. It was also configured to set up email communications capability, which was used to send fraudulent emails to third parties to solicit orders of Complainant’s inventory, on behalf of Complainant’s company. The Domain Name was suspended on February 8, 2026, by the Registrar. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights for ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for Complainant’s bona fide and well-known services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent used the Domain Name to impersonate or pose as Complainant, so as to send fraudulent emails to third parties to solicit orders of Complainant’s inventory. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) states that failure to respond to complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark, as noted above. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademarks. With Complainant’s rights in the ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in which it was registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark. The ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. Firstly, with regards to the ARISTA trademark, the addition of “networksinc” after the ARISTA trademark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant’s ARISTA mark; secondly, with regards to the ARISTA NETWORKS trademark, the absence of a space between “ARISTA” and “NETWORKS” and the addition of the term “inc” in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between ARISTA NETWORKS trademark and the Domain Name. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.8. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise page 4 authorized or licensed to use the ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating this trademark. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the record shows that the Domain Name and redirected to Complainant’s primary website, and was configured to set up email communications capability, which enabled Respondent to send fraudulent emails to third parties to solicit orders of Complainant’s inventory, on behalf of Complainant’s company. Complainant confirmed that the emails were not sent or authorized by Complainant and submits they were sent to impersonate Complainant to cause confusion among Complainant’s current and prospective customers while also preventing them from navigating to Complainant’s true website at the domain name <aristanetworks.com>. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademarks and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating these trademarks. Respondent is also not known to be associated with ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name is used to impersonate Complainant and to send fraudulent emails. UDRP panels have consistently held that use of a domain name for illegal activity — such as impersonation or passing off — can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” page 5 The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known; indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademark and related products and services are known and recognized for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, and also noting the use analysis below, Respondent was clearly aware of the ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS trademark when it registered the Domain Name. Moreover, the Domain Name’s inclusion of Complainant’s trademark ARISTA AND ARISTA NETWORKS in its entirety, with the addition of “networksinc” after the ARISTA trademark in the Domain Name and/or the absence of a space between “ARISTA” and “NETWORKS” and the addition of the term “inc” in the Domain Name, further reflects the awareness that Respondent had of Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration. Complainant also owns and operates its website at the domain name <arista.com> and <aristanetworks.com>. Such adoption of Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name illustrates Respondent’s effort to mislead Internet users looking for Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Moreover, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to confuse and mislead consumers. In particular, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the record shows that the Domain Name was configured to set up email communications capability, which enabled Respondent to send fraudulent emails to third parties to solicit orders of Complainant’s inventory. Complainant confirmed that these emails were not sent or authorized by Complainant and submits they were sent to impersonate Complainant to cause confusion among Complainant’s current and prospective customers while also preventing them from navigating to Complainant’s true website at the domain name <aristanetworks.com>. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent. UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to trade off goodwill in a complainant’s well-known trademark and impersonate complainant, as here, constitutes bad faith. See Philip Morris Products S.A. v. homn mohmoodi, WIPO Case No. D2022-4158. Moreover, such use of the Domain Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. Finally, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a response, and Respondent’s use of what appears to be false underlying contact information to register the Domain Name. The Panel thus considers such factors as strong further evidence of Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith. In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the ARISTA and ARISTA NETWORKS trademark, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <aristanetworksinc.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: May 13, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.