Dataruckus.blog

The timeline behind dataruckus.blog

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 Ruckus IP Holdings LLC v. Rafe Quintero Claim Number: FA2602002207466 PARTIES Complainant is Ruckus IP Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Rafe Quintero ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dataruckus.blog>, registered with Spaceship, 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 February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026. On February 27, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dataruckus.blog> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 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@dataruckus.blog. Also on February 27, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 20, 2026, 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 Ruckus started in 2002 with a focus on in-home IPTV content distribution over wireless networks. Ruckus designed an adaptive directional antenna technology, which was sold to other manufacturers to include in their products. It offers WiFi products such as indoor and outdoor access points, which have directional antenna technology and adjust to changes in radio frequency. Arris International plc acquired Ruckus in 2017. CommScope acquired the Arris group in 2019. Complainant acquired the trademark rights for the RUCKUS marks in 2024. Complainant asserts rights in the RUCKUS mark through its registration in the United States in 2013. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RUCKUS mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "data" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".blog". According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 575. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is offered for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RUCKUS mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered trademark rights for the mark RUCKUS and uses it to provide WiFi products. The mark was registered in 2013. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name was registered in 2026. The disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 575. 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 RUCKUS mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "data", and the ".blog" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). The addition of generic/descriptive terms and a gTLD fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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)). 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 Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant's 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 a disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information lists "Rafe Quintero" as registrant of record. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent makes no use of the disputed domain name other than to offer to sell it for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. Since Respondent does not allege – much less provide evidence to show – that it is in the business of selling domain names, this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Viljami Ylönen / INTL Enterprises, FA 1965059 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) ("Redirecting Internet users to a domain name sale page is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Sojag, Inc. v. Hong young jin, FA 1918082 (Forum Dec. 2, 2020) ("Complainant asserts that the domain name resolves to a website the sole function of which is to offer domain name for sale at a price greatly in excess of its costs to obtain and maintain the domain name. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(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, Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain name at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA 1617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) ("Respondent's offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use."); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. "Infa dot Net" Web Serv., FA 95685 (Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that "general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith"). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Further, the WHOIS information is: Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Name: Rafe Quintero Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Address: Rue des Verveines 70 Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing City: Sarlat Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Postal Code: 24200 Registrant/Admin/Tech/Billing Country: FR According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names: Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party's contention. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases. From publicly available databases, the Panel had determined that "Rue des Verveines 70, Sarlat" is not a valid address. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. 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 <dataruckus.blog> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 20, 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.