ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Roku, Inc. v. Ray Salyer, New Gear Media Case No. D2025-3194 1. The Parties The Complainant is Roku, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Ray Salyer, New Gear Media, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2025. On August 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 11, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 13, 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 amended Complaint on August 19, 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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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 a streaming platform that offers services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In the first week of January 2025, the Complainant had 90 million streaming households. It is present in nearly half of all broadband households in the United States. The Complainant operates The Roku Channel, which provides free and premium entertainment, including Roku Originals. The Roku Channel is accessible in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. The Complainant purchased the ad tech company Dataxu in 2019. In 2024, the Complainant achieved a net revenue of USD 4.1 billion. The Complainant ranks 21st on Fortune’s Future 50 list and 168th on Forbes’ Best Brands For Social Impact list. The Complainant owns the following Trademark Registrations for ROKU (“the Mark”): - United States Trademark Registration No. 3177666, registered on November 28, 2006, and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 003394558, registered on August 29, 2005. The Complainant maintains an online presence through its website at “www.roku.com”. The Complainant’s website received 24.2M total visits in August 2025. The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2019, and remains inactive. 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 argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because each prominently incorporates the Mark. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark. The Complainant contends that the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, has never operated a business under the disputed domain name, has not advertised the disputed domain name, and has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as evidenced by its passive holding of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the Mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name prominently incorporates the entire Mark with the addition of the term “ads.” Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 Although the addition of other terms, here “ads,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name, in this case “.com” may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
page 4 The Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests is underscored by the fact that the disputed domain name has remained unused since its registration in 2019. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, bad faith may be established by any one of the following non-exhaustive scenarios: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. 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, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Prior UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name which merely attaches the word “ads” to the Mark, and finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel also notes that the Respondent is associated with an entity called New Gear Media, which suggests involvement in advertising services, and that the disputed domain name was registered the same year that the Complainant announced the purchase of a company to expand its advertising services. It is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant and the Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Finally, the disputed domain name was registered under a privacy service, and the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Under the circumstances of this case, these facts further support the finding of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy