Ruggablehr.team

The timeline behind ruggablehr.team

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION RUGGABLE, LLC v. Onboarding Coordinator / Wps health solutions Claim Number: FA2501002137669 PARTIES Complainant is RUGGABLE, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Hannah Cannom of Walker Stevens Cannom LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Onboarding Coordinator / Wps health solutions ("Respondent"), Wisconsin, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ruggablehr.team>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 29, 2025; Forum received payment on January 29, 2025. On January 30, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruggablehr.team> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 February 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2025 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@ruggablehr.team. Also on February 3, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the RUGGABLE mark and the <ruggable.com> domain name for nearly fifteen (15) years, to market rugs. Complainant's RUGGABLE brand is an innovative and widely celebrated home decor brand, recognized for revolutionizing the rug industry with its patented two-piece washable rug system. Influenced by modern design and practical living, RUGGABLE has become synonymous with convenience, style, and functionality. Complainant has been described as a leader in blending practicality with design, offering a new standard in home decor. Complainant generates tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue through the sale of its innovative and stylish rugs, runners, and mats in the United States and internationally. Complainant carefully upholds its reputation for quality and convenience by exclusively offering products featuring the RUGGABLE brand on its official website, through select retail partnerships, and at its flagship store in Los Angeles. Signature items, including the iconic washable rugs with intricate designs and durable craftsmanship, are widely recognized for their blend of practicality and luxury, solidifying Complainant's position as a leader in modern home decor. Complainant asserts rights in the mark RUGGABLE through its registration in the United States in 2011. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RUGGABLE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters "hr" (which may stand for "human resources"), and the ".team" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because it is used in furtherance of phishing. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark RUGGABLE and uses it to market rugs. The mark was registered in 2011. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. 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 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's RUGGABLE mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters "hr" (which may stand for "human resources"), and the ".team" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms and/or letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus 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."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Onboarding Coordinator / Wps health solutions". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to conduct a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Panels have found such use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum February 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as noted above, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum Jul. 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant's mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy. 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 <ruggablehr.team> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 25, 2025 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.