Cormscope.com

The timeline behind cormscope.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Dular Niyangoda / itele Claim Number: FA2502002141777 PARTIES Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Dular Niyangoda / itele ("Respondent"), District of Columbia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cormscope.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains LLC. 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 February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On February 24, 2025, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cormscope.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains 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 February 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 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@cormscope.com. Also on February 28, 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 March 21, 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 provides communication products and services. With roots dating back to 1937, Complainant has played a role in virtually all of the world's best communication networks. It creates the infrastructure that connects people and technologies, including wired and wireless networks. Complainant was instrumental in creating cable TV infrastructure, the first wireless networks, the first data centers, and the first intelligent buildings. Today, Complainant offers a wide range of services under the COMMSCOPE mark, including, broadband solutions, enterprise solutions, and wireless solutions. Complainant has also used the COMMSCOPE mark in connection with a wide range of products, including antennas, cables, connectors, and networking systems, among others. Complainant has rights in the COMMSCOPE mark through its registration in the United States in 1994. The mark is well known. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COMMSCOPE mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (the letters "mm" are replaced by the visually similar letters "rm"), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its COMMSCOPE mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead fails to make active use of the disputed domain name. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as it inactively holds the disputed domain name. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COMMSCOPE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark COMMSCOPE and uses it to market communication products and services. The mark is well known. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 1994. The disputed domain name was were registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name is not being used. 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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant's COMMSCOPE mark (the letters "mm" are replaced by the visually similar letters "rm"), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Including a trademark, even if misspelled, in a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"). 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 COMMSCOPE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as "Dular Niyangoda / itele". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The disputed domain name is not being used. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), failure to make active use of a disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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 already noted, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put." In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith."). There has been no response to the Complaint; Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity; and Respondent engaged in typosquatting, see below. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). Further, by registering a domain name that is a mere misspelling of Complainant's mark, Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1970133 (Forum Nov. 24, 2021) ("Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse the misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other reference to the mark holder."); see also Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). Thus the Panel find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith use 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 <cormscope.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 21, 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.