Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. sasmita patra / Seoczar IT Services Pvt. Ltd.
Claim Number: FA2103001937008
Complainant is Arlo Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Marcia Kerrigan, Nebraska, USA. Respondent is sasmita patra / Seoczar IT Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <arlocamera.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 17, 2021.
On March 18, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <arlocamera.net> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 2021 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@arlocamera.net. Also on March 22, 2021, 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 19, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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 has offered goods under the ARLO trademark since at least October, 2014. Complainant has rights in the ARLO mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,906,065, registered February 23, 2016). Respondent’s <arlocamera.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARLO mark as it includes the ARLO mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive word “camera.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <arlocamera.net> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the ARLO mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent passes off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <arlocamera.net> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as and compete with Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Arlo Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), of San Jose, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of the domestic registration for the mark ARLO, which it has used continuously since at least as early as 2014, in connection with its provision of camera products and camera-related web hosting goods and services.
Respondent is sasmita patra / Seoczar IT Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”), of Utter Pradesh, India. Respondent’s registrar’s address is not listed but the listed phone number corresponds to Arizona, USA. The Panel notes that the <arlocamera.net> domain name was registered on or about May 7, 2018.
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 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”).
Complainant asserts rights in the ARLO mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,906,065, registered February 23, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ARLO mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues Respondent’s <arlocamera.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARLO mark as it includes the ARLO mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive word “camera.” Adding a descriptive term and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <arlocamera.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ARLO mark. When a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrants as “sasmita patra / Seoczar IT Services Pvt. Ltd.,” and Complainant argues there is no evidence provided to indicate that Respondent was authorized to use the ARLO mark. The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <arlocamera.net> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent passes off as Complainant. Passing off as a complainant may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Here, Complainant provides screenshots showing the disputed domain name resolves to a website that uses numerous pictures of Complainant’s prominently trademarked products. The website also has a section named “Arlo Camera Sale” page that offers Arlo goods for discounted “deal pricing.” Finally, the website includes a telephone number touting that “our highly trained Arlo technicians provide 24/7 service,” and are “guaranteed to solve issues in minutes.” The Panel here finds Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the <arlocamera.net> domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as and compete with Complainant. Passing off as and competing with a complainant can evidence bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Here, Complainant argues it is clear the Respondent created and registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to create a likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the ARLO Trademarks since the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety ARLO, the Disputed Domain Name offers goods and support services that compete with the Legitimate ARLO offerings provided by Complainant, and the look and feel of the content at the Disputed Domain Name, especially the inclusion of ARLO and ARLO marked products prominently throughout the website, creates a false affiliation between the Disputed Domain Name and the ARLO Trademarks. Moreover, Respondent’s prominent use of a green color in its logo and banner that is similar to Complainant’s logo and banner color provides further evidence of Respondent’s intent to confuse consumers into believing the goods and services offered in connection with the Disputed Domain Name are connected to or affiliated with Complainant’s Legitimate ARLO Support offerings. The Panel here finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arlocamera.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page