DECISION

 

Logitech International S.A. v. weiwei chen

Claim Number: FA2604002214535

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Logitech International S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua S. Frick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is weiwei chen ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <logitechegypt.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 7, 2026; Forum received payment on April 7, 2026.

 

On April 10, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitechegypt.com> Domain Name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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@logitechegypt.com. Also on April 13, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On May 5, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Bearing in mind that the Domain Name pointed to a commercial site with an English version, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel decides that the proceedings can proceed in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LOGITECH registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer programs and other computer related goods since 1996. The LOGITECH mark is well known.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark merely adding the generic term 'Egypt' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name was pointed to a site using the Complainant's trade mark as a masthead in its logo form with the registered trade mark symbol and images taken from the Complainant to impersonate the Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

 

The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead with the registered trade mark symbol and images taken from the Complainant to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and the Domain Name are connected to the Complainant. The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith to confuse Internet users for commercial gain and disrupt the Complainant's business in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LOGITECH registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer programs and other computer related goods since 1996.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 was pointed to a site using the Complainant's trade mark as a masthead in its logo form with the registered trade mark symbol, and images taken from the Complainant.

 

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 3.1 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

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's LOGITECH mark registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer programs and other computer related goods since 1996, the generic geographical term 'Egypt' and the gTLD.com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term including a geographical term 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 the Complainant). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic geographical term 'Egypt' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between that mark and the Domain Name.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's 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 the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See 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 disputed domain name 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). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The Domain Name in itself is confusing, appearing on its face to suggest an affiliation with the Complainant and to be the address for its authorised Egyptian site. Additionally, the web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's LOGITECH mark in its logo form as a masthead with the registered trade mark symbol and images taken from the Complainant to appear to be a site of the Complainant. The Panel finds this use was deceptive and confusing. As such it could not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant in order to cause existing or potential customers of the complainant to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe the site is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's LOGITECH mark in its logo form as a masthead with the registered trade mark symbol and images taken from the Complainant to impersonate the Complainant. The use of the Complainant's logo and images shows actual knowledge by the Respondent of the Complainant and its rights and business.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and products and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of the business attached to the domain name and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 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 <logitechegypt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: May 5, 2026