Ruckussupport.com

The timeline behind ruckussupport.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 Arris Enterprises LLC v. zhongyang Claim Number: FA2201001980903 PARTIES Complainant is Arris Enterprises LLC (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is zhongyang (“Respondent”), International. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ruckussupport.com>, registered with Hong Kong Juming Network Technology Co., Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 18, 2022. The Complaint was received in English. On January 25, 2022, Hong Kong Juming Network Technology Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ruckussupport.com> domain name is registered with Hong Kong Juming Network Technology Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hong Kong Juming Network Technology Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hong Kong Juming Network Technology Co., Ltd 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 January 26, 2022, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 15, 2022 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@ruckussupport.com. Also on January 26, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 February 21, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: REQUIRED LANGUAGE Complainant alleges that, because Respondent is conversant in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, taking into consideration the particular circumstances. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). Complainant contends that Respondent is familiar with the English language since the <ruckussupport.com> domain name is in English, the RUCKUS mark has no meaning in any language other than English, and translation would be an unfair burden and delay. The Panel agrees, noting that the disputed domain name resolves to links in English, and determines that the proceeding will be conducted in English. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent’s <ruckussupport.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RUCKUS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ruckussupport.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <ruckussupport.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant, Arris Enterprises LLC, provides wireless services and computer products. Complainant holds a registration for the RUCKUS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,408,483, registered Sept. 24, 2013). Respondent registered the <ruckussupport.com> domain name was registered on January 11, 2022, and uses it redirects to a website with various commercial hyperlinks. 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the RUCKUS mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO. 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).”) Respondent’s <ruckussupport.com> domain name uses Complainant’s RUCKUS and simply adds the term “support” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <ruckussupport.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RUCKUS mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ruckussupport.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the RUCKUS mark. The WHOIS information identifies “zhongyang” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue 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.”) Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain to redirect users via hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to a respondent’s own website which features hyperlinks does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name redirects to a website with various commercial hyperlinks. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <ruckussupport.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to third-party hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to third-party hyperlinks constitutes evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Niang, huai, FA1412001594788 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (“The at-issue domain name’s website includes advertisements for third parties, some which may sell insurance and banking services similar to those offered by Complainant. Using the at-issue domain name to display competing advertisements disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <ruckussupport.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: February 22, 2022 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.