DECISION

 

L-com, Inc. v. Tobias Gollner

Claim Number: FA1704001727818

PARTIES

Complainant is L-com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gregory S. Bernabeo ofSaul Ewing LLP, Pennsylvania, USA.  Respondent is Tobias Gollner (“Respondent”), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <l-com-signin-secure-login-true.info> and <l-com-signin-secure-login-valid.info> (‘the Domain Names’) registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 19, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 19, 2017.

 

On April 19, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <l-com-signin-secure-login-true.info> and <l-com-signin-secure-login-valid.info> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 April 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 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@l-com-signin-secure-login-true.info, postmaster@l-com-signin-secure-login-valid.info.  Also on April 21, 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 May 18, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name(s) be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

 

Complainant is the owner of common law rights in the mark L-COM which it has used continuously since 1985 in connection with various goods and services relating to its business as a provider of wired and wireless connectivity products for the electronics and data communications industries. It is the owner of trade mark registrations, inter alia in the USA for computer and communication related accessories. Complainant has operated a web site at l-com.com since at least 1996.

 

The Domain Names registered in 2017 include all words in Complainant’s mark,  and/or the generic terms ‘sign in’ ‘secure’, ‘log in’, ‘true’ or ‘valid’, hyphens and the .info gTLD. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s L-COM trade mark.  

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names that lead to ‘server not found’ or ‘this page cannot be displayed’ notices. Complainant has experience of similar domain names to its trade marks being used to send unauthorized false and misleading e mails to vendors requesting products on credit terms to perpetuate fraud.

 

The Domain Names have been registered in bad faith for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant and to misleadingly divert customers to intentionally attract Internet users to a web site or on line location for commercial gain and to cause a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trade mark as to the source of the Domain Names or material attached to them.

 

The no service notices attached to the Domain Names could lead to loss of customers, credibility and goodwill for Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

 

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations, inter alia in the USA for L-COM for computer and communication related accessories with first use in commerce recorded as 1985. Complainant has operated a web site at l-com.com since at least 1996.

 

The Domain Names registered in 2017 are not currently being used.

 

DISCUSSION

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:

 

 

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.”).

 

Identical  or Confusingly Similar

 

The Domain Names consists of Complainant’s L-COM mark (which is registered in USA  for  computer and communications related goods  and has been used since at least 1985), and/or the generic terms ‘sign in’, ‘secure’, ‘login’, ‘true’ and/or valid and the gTLD .info. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by Complainant). Adding hyphens does not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms listed above with hyphens to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .info does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the L-COM mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to Complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of a gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

There is no evidence of any use by Respondent of the Domain Names before the panel. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why it should be able to use Complainant’s marks which in the circumstances of Complainant’s longstanding reputation has not been explained. Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names upon reference to the WhoIs data. See Guardair Corporation v Pablo Palermo, FA 1407001571060 (Forum Aug 28, 2014) for support that this may be used as reference. As such the Panelist  finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

No use has been made of the name by Respondent since registration and it has not spoken up to clarify that the Domain Names have not been registered for fraudulent use as Complainant asserts which you would expect by return from a legitimate user. At the very least since the generic terms added to Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name give the impression that this is the correct place to log in for the L Com site any use will be at minimum confusing. See Phat Fashions LLC v Kruger, FA 96193 (Forum Dec 29, 2000)(finding bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) even though respondent has not actually used the domain name because’ it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually uses the name when inevitably when there is such use it will create the confusion described in the Policy.’)  Further passive use itself can be bad faith registration and use. See Am. Broad. Cos. Inc v Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb 28, 2007)(concluding that respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that he respondent registered the name in bad faith).

 

As such, the Panel believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

 

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 <l-com-signin-secure-login-true.info> and <l-com-signin-secure-login-valid.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  May 31, 2017