DECISION

 

Arlo Technologies Inc. v. Sataj S / Techboy Solutions

Claim Number: FA2601002202237

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Arlo Technologies Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emma K. Morehart of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Sataj S / Techboy Solutions ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <myarlolog.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026.

 

On January 29, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myarlolog.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@myarlolog.com. Also on February 2, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant offers security system products under ARLO marks since 2014. Complainant holds rights in ARLO mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,906,065, registered February 23, 2016). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ARLO mark, as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic words "my," "log," and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use ARLO mark. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The disputed domain name directs Internet users to a website where Respondent discusses Complainant's security systems, products, services, and login processes, as well as invites users to connect their Arlo devices on their local network, is nearly identical to Complainant's ARLO trademark and domain name. Complainant has received customer complaints about being scammed by Respondent after visiting Respondent's website and speaking to a representative of the website.

 

iii) Respondent is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by redirecting Internet users interested in Complainant's brand, creating a likelihood of confusion as to its relationship and affiliation with Complainant for its own financial gain, and profiting from posing as Complainant or its employees to provide paid services to Complainant's customers regarding ARLO products without authorization from Complainant, each of which amounts to bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii), and 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 4, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in ARLO mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,906,065, registered February 23, 2016).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent discusses Complainant's security systems, products, services, and login processes, as well as invites users to connect Respondent's Arlo devices on their local network, is nearly identical to Complainant's ARLO trademark and domain name.

 

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 claims rights in ARLO mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,906,065, registered February 23, 2016). Registration with these authorities is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided copies of its trademark registrations for ARLO mark, and the Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established rights in mark.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <myarlolog.com> is confusingly similar to its ARLO mark, as it contains mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic terms "my," "log," and the ".com" top-level domain. The Panel agrees, finding the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms...does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Sataj S / Techboy Solutions" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent impersonates Complainant and sells competing products. The Panel observes that passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering or 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 no bona fide use where a domain featured the complainant's mark and images related to its business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering or fair use where the respondent sold products with Complainant's mark, either counterfeit or unauthorized resales).

 

The Panel notes from the screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website that Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying ARLO trademark on the website. Specifically, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that Respondent discusses Complainant's security systems, products, services, and login processes, as well as invites users to connect Respondent's Arlo devices on their local network, is nearly identical to Complainant's ARLO trademark and domain name. Complainant claims to have received customer complaints about being scammed by Respondent after visiting Respondent's website and speaking to a representative of the website. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. Collectively, the evidence establishes the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by redirecting Internet users interested in Complainant's brand, creating a likelihood of confusion as to its relationship and affiliation with Complainant for its own financial gain, and profiting from posing as Complainant or its employees to provide paid services to Complainant's customers regarding ARLO products without authorization from Complainant, each of which amounts to bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii), and 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

The Panel finds that passing off as Complainant while selling competing products demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant's products...disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used a similar domain to offer competing, counterfeit goods).

 

As previously noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent discusses Complainant's security systems, products, services, and login processes, as well as invites users to connect Respondent's Arlo devices on their local network, is nearly identical to Complainant's ARLO trademark and domain name. The Panel finds that such use of the domain name, which fully incorporates Complainant's mark, impersonates Complainant's website, or implies affiliation or sponsorship, disrupts Complainant's business for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <myarlolog.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 24, 2026