F5, Inc., f/k/a F5 Networks, Inc. v Paras Kumar Agarwal

WIPO Case No. D2025-0857

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

F5, Inc., f/k/a F5 Networks, Inc. v. Paras Kumar Agarwal

Case No. D2025-0857

1. The Parties

The Complainant is F5, Inc., f/k/a F5 Networks, Inc., United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Azora

Law, U.S..

The Respondent is Paras Kumar Agarwal, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <f5certification.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with

GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28,
2025. On March 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification
in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 4, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name
which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 4,
2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the

Complaint on March 4, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was March 25, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on March 4 and 5, 2025. The Center sent an email regarding the possible settlement to the Parties on March 5, 2025, the Complainant did not request a suspension. The Respondent did not submit any formal

page 2

Response by the due date. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment on March 27, 2025.

The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 2025. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an information technology company organized as a corporation under the laws of the State of Washington in the U.S. The Complainant was founded in 1996. The filed evidence shows that it is an extremely successful company with worldwide operations and with its products being used by the majority of the world’s leading companies. Its stock is traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange, and the company has a capitalization of around 17 billion USD. The Complainant operates a website at “ advertising its network and applications security products and services.

The Complainant holds several relevant trademark registrations for the term “F5” – see for example, U.S. decision.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 15, 2024. Filed evidence shows that it has resolved
to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) which offers content to “advance your career” by providing “F5

Certification and Training”. This content clearly relates to the Complainant’s products and services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s F5 Trademark, which the Respondent has no permission to use. The Complainant states its belief that the Respondent’s website advertised unauthorized training or certification services by giving the misleading impression it was authorised or approved by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply substantively to the Complainant’s contentions.

The various emails the Respondent sent to the Center (above) essentially stated that the Respondent had removed the content from the Respondent’s Website which was the subject of the Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings

Preliminary Matters

The Panel notes that no substantive Response has been filed. The Respondent is however clearly aware of the Complaint (see above). While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s limited submissions. In any event, the Panel will however take into account the contents of the emails the

Respondent has sent to the Center in coming to a decision (see below).

page 3

Substantive Matters

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements in respect of the Disputed Domain Name:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name;

(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the F5 Trademark.

The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the F5 Trademark

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar
approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod
d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). It is established that, where a mark is recognizable within the
disputed domain name, the Disputed Domain Name is considered to be confusingly similar to the mark
(WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)

at section 1.7).

It is also established that the addition of a term (such as here “certification”) to a disputed domain name
would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark
(WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.8).

It is also well established that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), in this case “.com”, is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy non-exhaustively lists three circumstances that demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name:

i. before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name
or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
or
ii. you (as an individual, business or other organisation) have been commonly known by the domain name,
even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
iii. you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

None of these apply in the present circumstances. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the F5 Trademark. The Complainant has prior rights in the F5 Trademark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The website misleadingly suggests affiliation with the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s logo and F5 Trademark to offer services related to the Complaint, without any disclaimer of the lack of relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed

page 4

Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455). Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Respondent’s emails to the Center indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was available but that does not in itself provide the Respondent with rights or a legitimate interest.

Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence
demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see for example Do

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith,

In the present circumstances, the evidence as to the extent of the reputation the Complainant enjoys in the F5 Trademark, and the confusingly similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name to the F5 trademark, lead the Panel to conclude the registration and use was in bad faith. The Respondent’s Website was clearly

promoting a business which provided resources relating to the Complainant’s products and services, using
the Complainant’s F5 Trademark without any explanation regarding the lack of connection between the
Parties, and the Panel infers that the Respondent was by use of the Disputed Domain Name seeking to
attract customers looking for resources provided by or with the approval of the Complainant. As such its
behaviour clearly amounts to that specified in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as being evidence of
registration and use in bad faith, namely “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your
web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”. The Respondent also makes the
point in his emails to the Center that he has removed certain content from his website after the Complainant
objected to the Respondent’s registration. However the Panel cannot see that the Respondent has any
legitimate use he can make of the Disputed Domain Name given that by its nature it necessarily suggests a
connection with the Complainant when no such connection exists. The Panel finds that the Complainant has

established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <f5certification.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nick J. Gardner/
Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: April 14, 2025