Logitech International S.A. v. prasanth das / windows
Claim Number: FA2308002057521
Complainant is Logitech International S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is prasanth das / windows (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <drivers-logitech.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2023; Forum received payment on August 15, 2023.
On August 15, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <drivers-logitech.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 August 16, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 5, 2023 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@drivers-logitech.com. Also on August 16, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the LOGITECH mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and its extensive use of the mark and associated logos in its international business as a provider of goods and services in the field of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, and music and smart home functionality,
Complainant first alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LOGITECH mark in which it has rights and submits that in order to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant need only demonstrate that its LOGITECH mark is included in the disputed domain name. Avaya Inc. v. Jomar Technologies / Jomar Technologies, Inc., FA 1554827 (Forum May 15, 2014) (ending the identical and/or confusingly similar analysis after finding that the domain included Complainant’s identical mark).
Here, it is submitted, the disputed domain name <drivers-logitech.com>, incorporates Complainant’s famous LOGITECH mark in its entirety, and the only differences between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s LOGITECH mark is the addition the generic term “drivers” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com>.
Complainant argues that these insignificant differences do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s famous LOGITECH mark, submitting that previous panels established under the Policy have consistently held that such minor additions to a complainant’s mark are insufficient to negate the confusingly similar aspects of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See e.g. Radio Flyer, Inc. v. Kelly Bell, FA 1829805 (Forum Mar. 18, 2019) (finding the <radioflyerstore.com> domain to be confusingly similar to the RADIO FLYER mark).
Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent (1) has never been known or referred to by the disputed domain name or any variation thereof, (2) is not affiliated with, licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the LOGITECH mark, (3) has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and (4) registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service to conceal his/her/their identity.
Complainant submits that there is no other entity in the worldwide consumer electronics industry, apart from Complainant, that is known as LOGITECH.
Further, there is no indication that Respondent or any business or other organization owned or controlled by Respondent has ever been commonly known by or referred to as the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is Respondent’s legal name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v Stefan Hansmann / Invertising, FA 1610574 (Forum May 12, 2015) (finding respondent had no rights or legitimate interests where respondent was not commonly known as the disputed domain).
Complainant adds that in Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) it was held that the respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified the respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that the respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any manner).
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is not associated with Complainant and Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent’s use of the LOGITECH mark. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (where the panel held a respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name at issue where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the AMAZON mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; also in Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name at issue as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Complainant further contends that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Referring to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, (“Respondent’s Website”), Complainant submits that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in the address of Respondent’s Website, is a clear and willful attempt to intentionally impersonate Complainant’s official LOGITECH website and/or a website associated with or authorized by Complainant. This, Complainant submits is evidenced by the fact that Respondent’s Website prominently displays the LOGITECH mark, displays Complainant’s copyrighted photos of Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products copied from Complainant’s LOGITECH Website; and purports to offer drivers and other software for Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products.
Complainant adds that Respondent’s unauthorized use of the LOGITECH mark on Respondent’s Website and in the disputed domain name is an attempt to create the false impression that Respondent’s Website is one of Complainant’s official websites or is a website approved by or associated with Complainant, causes Internet users searching for Complainant’s official LOGITECH-branded websites to mistakenly believe that Respondent’s Website is affiliated with or hosted, sponsored, or authorized by Complainant, when that is not the case.
Complainant submits that Respondent’s Website is intentionally designed to deceive Internet users as to the source of the website and/or the drivers and software purportedly offered through the website. Thus, Respondent is not using the disputed domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial fair use. Logitech International S.A. v. iqbal iqbal walker, FA 1867574 (Forum Nov. 13, 2019) (finding website offering downloadable drivers and firmware for products related to Complainant that also displays Complainant’s trademark and unauthorized images of its products is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant adds that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not identify Respondent’s name, thus keeping Respondent’s identity private, which it is argued, is further evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Save On Energy, LLC v. Joseph Crono, FA 1496896 (Forum June 17, 2013) (stating "[t]he fact that Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service to conceal his identity is by itself evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests.").
Complainant next alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (1) the disputed domain name identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOGITECH mark; (2) Respondent had constructive or actual notice of Complainant’s rights to the LOGITECH mark; and (3) Respondent is using Complainant’s LOGITECH mark in the disputed domain name and on Respondent’s Website without Complainant’s authorization in an attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent’s Website for its own financial gain.
Complainant submits that by using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous LOGITECH mark, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of deceiving consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s Website and thereby disrupting Complainant’s business. This, Complainant submits, constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(iii). See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (Finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the contested <logitechdownload.com> domain name to offer the same goods and services as Complainant disrupts Complainant’s business.
Complainant adds that when Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2018, Complainant had been using its famous LOGITECH mark for approximately 30 years and had owned registrations for the LOGITECH mark for more than 20 years. This evidence strongly indicates that Respondent had constructive, if not actual, notice of Complainant’s rights to the LOGITECH mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
Additionally, given the appearance of Respondent’s Website, including the unauthorized use of the LOGITECH mark, photos of Complainant’s LOGITECH- branded products copied from the LOGITECH Website, and purported offering of drivers and software for Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products, it is clear Respondent is attempting to pass off Respondent’s Website as one of Complainant’s official websites or a website authorized by or associated with Complainant.
Thus, it is undeniable that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant, Complainant’s LOGITECH mark, and Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products prior to registering and using the disputed domain name.
Complainant submits that this is clear evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (finding bad faith where Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights).
Moreover, it is contended that Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s LOGITECH mark and other intellectual property to attract Internet consumers to Respondent’s Website using the disputed domain name without Complainant’s authorization for Respondent’s own financial gain is clear evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Qian Jihai, FA 1882533 (Forum May 7, 2020) (finding respondent’s use of disputed domain to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a provider of goods and services in the field of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, and music and smart home functionality, which it markets under the LOGITECH mark for which it owns the following trademark and service mark registrations:
· United States registered trademark LOGITECH registration number 1969025, registered on the Principal Register on April 23, 1996 for goods in international class 9;
· United States registered trademark LOGITECH and Design, registration number 2507301, registered on the Principal Register on November 13, 2001 for goods in international class 9;
· United States registered trademark LOGITECH, registration number 2835047, registered on the Principal Register on April 20, 2004, for goods in international class 9;
· United States registered service mark, LOGITECH, registration number 3950128, registered on the Principal Register on April 26, 2011 for services in international class 38;
· United States registered trademark LOGITECH and Design, registration number 4493147, registered on the Principal Register on March 11, 2014 for goods in international class 9;
· LOGITECH and Design, registration number 4160033, registered on the Principal Register on June 19, 2012 for goods in international class 9;
· LOGITECH and Design, registration number 5294178, registered on the Principal Register on September 26, 2017 for goods in international classes 9 and 28;
· LOGITECH and Design, registration number 6240891, registered on the Principal Register on January 5, 2021 for services in international class 41.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <www.logitech.com> (the “LOGITECH Website”).
The disputed domain name was registered on January 10, 2018, and resolves to a website that purports to present information about Complainant’s products. Complainant’s LOGITECH mark extensively across the resolving website, and Internet users visiting the website are invited to provide their names, their email addresses and the addresses of their websites in order to “Leave a Reply” and “Post Comment”
There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar’s. WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the information provided by the Registrar for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint. The Registrar has confirmed that Respondent who has availed of a privacy service to conceal his/her/their identity, is the registrant 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 and 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”).
A. Complainant’s Rights
Complainant claims ownership of a long list of trademark registration across the world for, and including the LOGITECH mark, but without any supporting evidence, except for its portfolio of United States registered trademarks and service marks described above, for which it has provided copies of the registration certificates.
Nonetheless, based on its ownership of the abovementioned portfolio of United States registered trademarks and service marks, Complainant has provided convincing, uncontested evidence that it has rights in the LOGITECH mark.
Furthermore, Complainant has shown that it has established a reputation and goodwill in the LOGITECH mark through extensive use of the mark in trade, including on the Internet, in its business as a provider of goods and services in the field of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, and music and smart home functionality.
Complainant’s rights and goodwill in the LOGITECH mark, are enhanced by its Internet presence and its use of the mark on its website at <www.logitech.com>.
B. Confusing Similarity
The disputed domain name <drivers-logitech.com>, consists of Complainant’s LOGITECH mark in its entirety in combination with the descriptive word “drivers”, a hyphen, and the gTLD extension <.com>.
Complainant’s LOGITECH mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. Neither the descriptive word “drivers”, nor the hyphen add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name and the presence of neither of those elements prevents a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOGITECH mark.
Similarly, the gTLD extension <.com> does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity because in the circumstances of this proceeding, it would be considered to be a necessary technical requirement for a domain name registration,
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LOGITECH mark in which Complainant has rights, and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that
· Respondent has never been known or referred to by the disputed domain name nor any variation thereof,
· Respondent has not licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the LOGITECH mark;
· Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service to conceal its identity;
· there is no other entity in the worldwide consumer electronics industry, apart from Complainant, that is known as LOGITECH;
· there is no indication that Respondent or any business or other organization owned or controlled by Respondent has ever been commonly known by, or referred to as the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is Respondent’s legal name;
· furthermore, Respondent is not associated with Complainant;
· Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
· the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, (“Respondent’s Website”) illustrates that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in the address of Respondent’s Website, is a clear and willful attempt to intentionally impersonate Complainant’s official LOGITECH website and/or a website associated with or authorized by Complainant; which is evidenced by the fact that Respondent’s Website prominently displays the LOGITECH mark, displays Complainant’s copyrighted photos of Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products copied from Complainant’s LOGITECH Website; and purports to offer drivers and other software for Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products;
· Respondent’s unauthorized use of the LOGITECH mark on Respondent’s Website and in the disputed domain name is an attempt to create the false impression that Respondent’s Website is one of Complainant’s official websites or is a website approved by or associated with Complainant causes Internet users searching for Complainant’s official LOGITECH-branded websites to mistakenly believe that Respondent’s Website is affiliated with or hosted, sponsored, or authorized by Complainant, when that is not the case. Respondent’s Website is intentionally designed to deceive Internet users as to the source of the Website and/or the drivers and software purportedly offered through the Website; thus, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial fair use;
· the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not identify Respondent’s name, thus keeping Respondent’s identity private, is further evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has adduced clear and convincing, uncontested evidence that it has trademark and service mark rights in the LOGITECH mark which predate the registration and first use of the disputed domain name on January 10, 2018.
It is most improbable that the disputed domain name which is composed of the LOGITECH mark the word drivers, and a hyphen in combination with the gTLD extension was chosen and registered without knowledge of Complainant.
LOGITECH is a distinctive mark; the word “drivers” is descriptive and infers a reference to downloadable drivers for computers, which is closely associated with the field of business activity in which Complainant is engaged; the hyphen has no significance within the disputed domain name, except perhaps to emphasize the LOGITECH mark by separating it from the other element within the disputed domain name; and in the context of this Complaint, the gTLD <.com> extension would be perceived as a neutral technical necessity for the disputed domain name.
Complainant’s distinctive and proprietary LOGITECH mark is the dominant element in the disputed domain name, therefore this Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant and its LOGITECH mark in mind to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in the mark.
Complainant has averred that Respondent’s Website prominently displays the LOGITECH mark, displays Complainant’s copyrighted photos of Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products copied from Complainant’s LOGITECH Website; and purports to offer drivers and other software for Complainant’s LOGITECH-branded products.
The exhibited screen capture of Respondent’s Website however contains no images whatsoever - only text, so Complainant has failed to prove its allegation that Respondent has used its copyright images.
Nonetheless, as alleged, the exhibited screen capture, appears to show that Respondent is purporting to offer downloads Complainant’s drivers, and the content does not give any impression that Respondent’s website is not owned or controlled by Complainant.
In the circumstances, this Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, to attract, deceive, and confuse Internet users, who are likely to be trying to access Complainant’s official websites, and to misdirect his/her/their Internet traffic to Respondent’s website.
Such use must disrupt Complainant’s business as alleged.
Furthermore, it is of concern that Respondent’s Website invites Internet visitors to provide their personal data, including their name, email address and website address in order to provide comments on the contents of Respondent’s Website. It is also of great concern that Respondent, who is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as a website address, is inviting visitors to download files onto their computers.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <drivers-logitech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
______________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC, Panelist
Dated: September 7, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page