Nxtsuitetech.com

The timeline behind nxtsuitetech.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.

DECISION NetSuite Inc. v. Mohamad Abdul Sharooq Ahmed Claim Number: FA2110001969017 PARTIES Complainant is NetSuite Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Amy Tindell of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Mohamad Abdul Sharooq Ahmed (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nxtsuitetech.com>, registered with GoDaddy.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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 14, 2021. On October 15, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 October 20, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 9, 2021 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@nxtsuitetech.com. Also on October 20, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 15, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 contends as follows: Complainant is a leading provider of cloud-based business management software. Complainant has rights in the NETSUITE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the NETSUITE mark in its entirety and changes the letter “e” to the letter “x” and adds the term “tech” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed any rights in the NETSUITE mark to Respondent. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent continues to use the domain name for its own website in violation of the referral agreement with Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. Further, Respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name in violation of the referral agreement with Complainant indicates bad faith intent to divert customers for commercial gain. Finally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NETSUITE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the NETSUITE mark. Complainant’s rights in the NETSUITE mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark. Respondent uses the <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name in violation of a written agreement between Respondent and Complainant. DISCUSSION 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." 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. 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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 The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for its NETSUITE mark demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s NETSUITE trademark with its first “e” replaced by an “x,” followed by the term “tech” and with all followed by the top level domain name, “.com.” The differences between the at-issue <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name and Complainant’s NETSUITE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NETSUITE trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”) Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “[p]anels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Mohamad Abdul Sharooq Ahmed” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <nxtsuitetech.com> or by NETSUITE. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Furthermore, Respondent’s violation of the parties’ Referral Partner Agreement, that in-part governs the use of Complainant’s trademarks, also shows that Respondent is not known by the domain name. See Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where it maintained the domain name registrations on the complainant’s behalf and then appropriated the disputed domain names for itself, without permission from the complainant); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Additionally, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name in violation of the parties’ Referral Partner Agreement constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the at-issue domain names to divert internet users attempting to reach the complainant’s website and in breach of the complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, circumstances are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. First and as mentioned regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses <nxtsuitetech.com> in violation of the terms the parties’ Referral Partner Agreement. In so doing, Respondent exploits Complainant’s trademark to attract internet users for commercial gain. Such use of the at-issue domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program). Next, Respondent suffered an adverse finding as the respondent in a prior UDRP decision concerning Complainant’s NETSUITE trademark. Respondent’s multiple registrations of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NETSUITE mark shows a pattern of domain name abuse and thereby suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NETSUITE mark when it registered <nxtsuitetech.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from Respondent’s prior contractual relationship with Complainant as mentioned elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of its confusingly similar domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights therein further shows Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <nxtsuitetech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: November 16, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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