Westmore · UDRP decision
FORUM · Case No. FA2602002206539

Sell-ruckus.com, Buysell-ruckus.com

TransferFORUM-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered both disputed domain names transferred after Respondent expressly consented to transfer. Recognizing the parties’ common request and finding no aggravating circumstances, the Panel declined to conduct the traditional UDRP analysis.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2026-03-24
Panelist(s)
Nicholas J.T. Smith
Complainant
Ruckus IP Holdings LLC
Respondent
Jon Miller
Counsel
William Schultz
Law firm
Merchant & Gould
Disputed domain(s)
sell-ruckus.com, buysell-ruckus.com
Citation weightrelies on 3 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind sell-ruckus.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind sell-ruckus.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Outcome by domain

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

sell-ruckus.comTransferred
buysell-ruckus.comTransferred
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of sell-ruckus.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The Panel made no finding of bad-faith registration or use because it forewent the traditional UDRP analysis and ordered immediate transfer by consent.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarnot_reached
Rights or legitimate interestsnot_reached
Registered and used in bad faithnot_reached

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2026-03-24
Panel
Nicholas J.T. Smith
Full decision
4 min read · hosted by Westmore

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Ruckus IP Holdings LLC v. Jon Miller Claim Number: FA2602002206539 PARTIES Complainant is Ruckus IP Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Jon Miller ("Respondent"), Minnesota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <sell-ruckus.com> and <buysell-ruckus.com> ("Domain Names"), registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2026; Forum received payment on February 20, 2026. On February 23, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sell-ruckus.com> and <buysell-ruckus.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 2026 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@sell-ruckus.com, postmaster@buysell-ruckus.com. Also on March 2, 2026, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER Forum received two emails from Respondent on March 6 and March 10, 2026. Both emails clearly expressed Respondent's consent "to the transfer of the following domain names" to Complainant and listed the two Domain Names. The Panel is satisfied that this material demonstrates an intent from Respondent not to contest the proceeding and consent to the transfer of the Domain Names to the Complainant. In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Names, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Names to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <sell-ruckus.com> and <buysell-ruckus.com> domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant ... Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy."); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). DECISION As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the Domain Names from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sell-ruckus.com> and <buysell-ruckus.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: March 24, 2026 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.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around sell-ruckus.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,966 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Westmore
Support

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.