Logik Systems, Inc. v. Deng Guo Sen
Claim Number: FA1703001721490
Complainant is Logik Systems, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Nathan C. Belzer of Belzer PC, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Deng Guo Sen (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is/are <wwwlogikcull.com>, registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 13, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 13, 2017.
On March 14, 2017, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wwwlogikcull.com> domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited 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 20, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 10, 2017 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@wwwlogikcull.com. Also on March 20, 2017, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 18, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Logik systems, Inc., is a provider of online software services for accessing, collecting, managing, searching, and producing data for legal discovery purposes. In connection with this business, Complainant uses the LOGIKCULL mark and <www.logikcull.com> domain name to provide these services. Complainant has rights in the LOGIKCULL mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,077,458, registered Dec. 27, 2011). See Compl., at Attached Annex 3. Respondent’s <wwwlogikcull.com> is identical to Complainant’s mark, as the disputed domain name consists of the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters “www” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the LOGIKCULL mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, <wwwlogikcull.com> resolves to a website featuring sponsored advertisement listings “served automatically by a third party.” See Compl., at Attached Annexes 4–6.
Respondent has registered and used <wwwlogikcull.com> in bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website containing parked advertising content in an attempt to gain commercially from misleading Internet users. Additionally, the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name, <wwwlogikcull.com>, was created on August 24, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Preliminary Issue: Required Language of Complaint
Complainant contends Respondent is conversant in English based upon the fact that the advertisements placed on the resolving website for <wwwlogikcull.com> are exclusively in English and target English-speaking websites. See Compl., at Attached Annexes 4–6. The advertisements were placed through <Parkingcrew.net>, a website maintained in English. See Compl., at Attached Annex 7. Further, Respondent appears to have registered numerous domain names based on English language words or brands. See Compl., at Attached Annex 9.
As such, the Panel finds it appropriate to continue these proceedings in English.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <wwwlogikcull.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, LOGIKCULL. Complainant has adequately plead it rights and interests in and to the trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely preceding the exact trademark with “www” and appending the g TLD “.com” to the end. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Deng Guo Sen.” The record is otherwise lacking any showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant further argues Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is evinced by its failure to use the name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring sponsored advertisements. See Compl., at Attached Annexes 4–6. Use of a disputed domain name to operate a pay-per-click website is not a use demonstrative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Fox News Network, LLC v. Reid, D2002-1085 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate revenue via advertisement and affiliate fees is not a bona fide offering of good or services).
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent does not evince rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a website from which it receives pay-per-click fees is evidence of its bad faith. Use of a disputed domain name to misdirect Internet users and gain from pay-per-click advertisements or links can be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (FORUM Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links). The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with sponsored advertising links. See Compl., at Attached Annexes 4–6.
The Panel, therefore, finds Respondent to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also claims that <wwwlogikcull.com>; being a domain name consisting only of the letters, “www”, the LOGIKCULL mark and a gTLD, is a typosquatted domain name and is thus evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Addition of the “www” prefix to a mark can constitute typosquatting and is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (ForumFeb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith). Additionally, typosquatting in this manner can evince actual knowledge of a complainant and its rights in a mark. See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (“Registering a domain name which entirely incorporates a famous mark with the addition of the “www” prefix evidences not only actual knowledge of a trademark holder’s rights in that mark but an intent to ensnare Internet users who forget to type the period between the “www” and a second-level domain name while attempting to reach Complainant’s URL.”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be a typosquatted domain name. This fact demonstrates Respondent’s actual prior knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s mark. This establishes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwlogikcull.com> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page