DECISION

 

Logitech International S.A. v. Liza Swaniawski / Sophy Allen / Allen Sophy

Claim Number: FA2601002200296

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Logitech International S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Liza Swaniawski / Sophy Allen / Allen Sophy ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> ("Domain Names"), registered with CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 18, 2026; Forum received payment on January 18, 2026.

 

On January 19 and 20, 2026, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> domain names are registered with CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Dynadot Inc have verified that Respondent is bound by the CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and Dynadot Inc registration agreements 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 January 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2026 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@logitechcanada.com and postmaster@logitech-uk.com. Also on January 20, 2026, 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 February 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has implicitly alleged that the named entities which control the Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  

 

The Panel considers it likely, on the balance of probabilities, that all of the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant's LOGITECH mark, 2) Each of the Domain Names resolve or resolved to essentially identical websites ("Respondent's Websites"). The Respondent's Websites reproduce Complainant's LOGITECH mark and feature copyrighted images of the Complainant's products and purport to offer counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant's products for sale at discounted prices.  Each of the Respondent's Websites is almost identical to the other, featuring the same font, general appearance and layout, photos and colour scheme with the only difference being the prices (and currency the prices is displayed in). Finally, 3) Each of the named registrants shares the same e-mail address.

 

This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that two unconnected entities (with the same e-mail address) would register two similar domain names and resolve them to essentially identical websites. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" for this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a United States corporation that since 1982 has manufactured and sold a variety of computer accessories, such as keyboards, mice, webcams and speakers, under the LOGITECH mark. Complainant has rights in the LOGITECH mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,969,025 registered April 23, 1996). The <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the LOGITECH mark as each domain name wholly incorporates the LOGITECH mark, adding only a geographic term and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the LOGITECH mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the Respondent's Websites belong to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's LOGITECH Mark and copyrighted images of Complainant's branded goods, purportedly for sale.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LOGITECH mark at the time of registration evidenced by the use of the Complainant's marks and images of Complainant's goods on the Respondent's Websites.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the LOGITECH mark.  Each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LOGITECH mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the LOGITECH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,969,025 registered April 23, 1996). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that each of the <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LOGITECH mark as each incorporates the LOGITECH mark adding only a geographic term or abbreviation ("-uk" or "Canada") and the ".com" gTLD.  Addition of a geographic term and a TLD to a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent's <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant's GM mark as the addition of the geographic term "-uzbekistan" is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

        

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LOGITECH mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Liza Swaniawski / Sophy Allen / Allen Sophy" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names resolve or have resolved to the Respondent's Websites which through the reproduction of the LOGITECH mark, copyrighted images of Complainant's products and the absence of a disclaimer, pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant or a retailer authorized by the Complainant (which is not the case) for the purpose of purporting to offer for sale either unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's computer accessories, in either case in direct competition with Complainant's authorized LOGITECH computer accessories. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (August and October 2025 respectively), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's LOGITECH mark since each of the Respondent's Websites passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or entity connected to Complainant including reproducing Complainant's mark and images of Complainant's products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register two domain names that contain the LOGITECH mark and use them to redirect visitors to a website purportedly selling unauthorized computer accessories in direct competition with the Complainant under the LOGITECH mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the LOGITECH mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's LOGITECH mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites that purport to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's products in direct competition with the Complainant's products.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See 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.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <logitechcanada.com> and <logitech-uk.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated:  February 10, 2026