Arrisin.com

The timeline behind arrisin.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. hsinyu lien Claim Number: FA2503002147236 PARTIES Complainant is Arris Enterprises LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is hsinyu lien ("Respondent"), Taiwan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <arrisin.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc. 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. Michael A. Albert as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2025; Forum received payment on March 27, 2025. On March 28, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <arrisin.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 April 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 21, 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@arrisin.com. Also on April 1, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 1, 2025. On March 31, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Michael A. Albert 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has extensively used and advertised the ARRIS brand in association with a wide range of products and services dating back to at least as early as 1996. Arris has invested substantial time, money, and effort in creating, marketing, and maintaining its website located at surfboard.com. As a result of the extensive promotion of the ARRIS brand and trade name, Arris has developed substantial goodwill and customer loyalty under this trademark. The ARRIS trademark is a distinctive, widely recognized trademark and was prior to the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ARRIS Marks. Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to Arris's ARRIS Marks or in the infringing Domain Name. Arris has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ARRIS Marks or any derivative mark for any purpose. The Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent contends that the domain was registered solely for private, non-commercial purposes. It is not used in any public or profit-driven capacity. The website is not indexed by search engines, is not listed or advertised publicly, and is only accessed by Respondent for personal development and testing purposes. The Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks. The Disputed Domain Name does not contain language that implies affiliation with or endorsement by Arris Enterprises LLC. There is no attempt to redirect traffic, solicit customers, or profit from any similarity to the ARRIS brand. The content of the site has no relation to communications products or services. Respondent contends that the Disputed Domain Name is based on a personal alias Respondent has used online for many years. Respondent had no prior knowledge of Arris Enterprises LLC, nor was the domain name selected with any reference to, or intention to reference, the Arris brand. Respondent has not attempted to sell, advertise, or offer the Disputed Domain Name for sale. It was not acquired with the intention to resell, mislead, or block the complainant. FINDINGS The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 14, 2025 by Respondent. Arris has extensively used and advertised the ARRIS brand in association with a wide range of products and services dating back to at least as early as 1996. The ARRIS mark has been used in commerce continuously since at least as early as 2003. In particular, Arris Enterprises LLC is the owner of the ARRIS trademark, Registration Number 4254343, registered with the USPTO on December 4, 2012 in addition to registrations with the EU (013093786, December 15, 2017) and UK (UK00913093786, December 15, 2017). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's ARRIS mark and adds the letters "in" as well as adding the generic top-level domain ".com." Complainant contends that the addition of the term "in" only adds to the likelihood of confusion because "IN" refers either to "International" or to the country of India. The Panel agrees that the addition of the top-level domain is immaterial under the Policy. See, e.g., Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Whether the letters "in" obviate confusion is a closer question. The Panel is not persuaded that these letters, in this context, would necessarily be perceived as referring to either the term "International" or the country of India. Nevertheless, the bar for showing that Factor One has been met is generally considered a relatively low one, analogous to "standing" in court, and on that basis the Panel finds that Complainant meets that burden, and accordingly that the disputed domain name may be considered confusingly similar to Complainant's ARRIS marks. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent contends, however, that it adopted the disputed domain name for personal and noncommercial purposes only, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the ARRIS mark. Further, Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is based on a personal alias Respondent has used online for many years. Respondent has provided no evidence of the said online usage. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on Complainant, who has not made a compelling showing that Respondent's allegation is false. While admittedly it can be difficult to "prove a negative," and accordingly panels will commonly shift the burden onto a respondent when a complainant has made a prima facie showing of lack of rights or legitimate interests, whether even such a preliminary showing has been made here is borderline at best. In particular, several factors here make the case for burden-shifting less plausible. First, the term "Arrisin" is not self-evidently – nor is there evidence in the record that it is actually or intentionally – a derivative of the trademark ARRIS. The letters "in" can, indeed, refer to "International" or "India" but they are sufficiently generic and of broad usage such that they could refer to any number of other terms – or indeed none at all; they may simply form part of a word, "arrisin," that while not a word in the English language might nevertheless (as per Respondent's assertion) be one that Respondent has used online as an alias. The Panel is troubled that Respondent has not come forward with any evidence of such prior usage; but again the burden remains with Complainant unless shifted, and here the evidence supporting such a shift is thin. Additional facts supporting Respondent include the lack of any website on which the term is used, the lack of any evidence or reason to infer that Respondent was aware of Arris (which knowledge, in fact, Respondent expressly denies having had), and the lack of any evidence of overlap between Complainant's business and respondent's conduct or usage of the domain name. Ownership of a domain name does not, of course, require the owner to use the domain name to host a public web site. Domain names can be used for other purposes (e.g. email, non-publicly-accessible web sites, etc.). So long as that is what Respondent is using it for, it is not clear that Respondent lacks the right to do so. In short, while the question is close one, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As to the third factor, bad faith, Complainant's failure of proof is even clearer than as to the second factor. Complainant comes forward with no evidence from which this Panel can find that Respondent acted in bad faith. First of all, Respondent denies having had any knowledge of Complainant or its marks prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant offers no evidence that this statement was false. While it undisputedly owns a registered trademark, it has not established that the fame of this mark is so widespread that Respondent can be presumed to know of it. Nor is the disputed domain name so self-evidently derivative of that mark so as to make it implausible that it was adopted merely coincidentally and without any intent to target Complainant's business. Nor has Complainant shown any overlap between its business and any conduct engaged in by Respondent. Complainant has made no showing that Respondent has somehow targeted its business, generated any confusion, or sought to obtain improper remuneration (indeed, Respondent has not offered the domain name for sale). Complainant's theory of bad faith rests entirely on Respondent's failure to make any public use of its domain name. But as explained above, public use is not a requirement for a party to own, or retain, a domain name. Accordingly, on the present record, the Panel finds that Complainant has not met its burden of proof on Factor Three (bad faith). This finding, however, comes with a caveat: Respondent has made a number of representations in its Response regarding its usage, and intended usage, of the disputed domain name. As of the present time, those representations appear to be true, or at least have not been proven false by Complainant. Should circumstances materially change, however, and the disputed domain name be used in a manner inconsistent with those representations, it is possible that Complainant might have a basis to file a new proceeding under the Policy to address the circumstances as they may exist at such time. DECISION Complainant not having established all three of the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall DENIED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arrisin.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent. Michael Albert, Panelist Dated: April 17, 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.