DECISION

Logitech International S.A. v. Parnika Singh

Claim Number: FA2604002214540

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Logitech International S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher M. Dolan and Joshua S. Frick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Parnika Singh ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <logitechguk.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Dynadot LLC.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 7, 2026; Forum received payment on April 7, 2026. Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on April 13, 2026.

 

On April 12, 2026, Dynadot LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitechguk.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 April 13, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@logitechguk.com. Also on April 13, 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 May 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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

Complainant alleges:

 

That Complainant is a leading worldwide provider of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, music and smart home, with products that include keyboards, computer mice, tablet accessories, webcams, portable speakers, headphones, and universal remotes. Complainant has used its LOGITECH mark in connection with the sale and promotion of its goods since at least as early as 1982 and has used its LOGITECH G mark since at least as early as 2015 (collectively, the "LOGITECH Marks").

 

That Complainant owns an extensive worldwide portfolio of registrations for the LOGITECH Marks, including numerous United States registrations, many of which have achieved incontestable status pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. The LOGITECH mark is famous under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <logitechguk.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's LOGITECH and LOGITECH G marks because it incorporates the marks in their entirety, the only differences being the addition of the abbreviation for the United Kingdom ("UK") and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com," neither of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's marks.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; is not affiliated with, licensed by, or authorized by Complainant to use the LOGITECH Marks; has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy service to conceal its identity. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that constitutes a clear and willful attempt to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website by prominently displaying the LOGITECH Marks, purporting to offer LOGITECH-branded goods for sale, and displaying Complainant's copyrighted photographs of LOGITECH-branded goods.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. When Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2025, Complainant had been using its LOGITECH mark for more than 40 years and the LOGITECH G mark for more than 10 years and owned numerous United States and foreign registrations. Respondent's prominent use of the LOGITECH Marks and Complainant's copyrighted product photographs on Respondent's Website is unmistakable evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its LOGITECH Marks. Respondent's unauthorized use of the LOGITECH Marks to attract Internet consumers to Respondent's Website for Respondent's commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

Complainant owns numerous registrations for the LOGITECH and LOGITECH G marks (the "LOGITECH Marks") on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as a worldwide portfolio of foreign registrations. Complainant has used the LOGITECH mark in commerce since at least as early as 1982 and the LOGITECH G mark since at least as early as 2015. The LOGITECH Marks are well-known.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <logitechguk.com> in 2025, decades after Complainant established rights in the LOGITECH Marks. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Parnika Singh." Respondent originally registered the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by LOGITECH or any similar name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") that prominently displays the LOGITECH Marks, purports to offer LOGITECH-branded goods for sale, and displays Complainant's copyrighted photographs of LOGITECH-branded products. Respondent's Website is designed to give Internet users the false impression that it is operated by, affiliated with, or authorized by 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 3.0 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 established rights in the LOGITECH and LOGITECH G marks through numerous registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through long, continuous use in commerce since 1982 and 2015, respectively. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.2.1; see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant's rights in a mark).

 

The Disputed Domain Name <logitechguk.com> incorporates Complainant's LOGITECH mark in its entirety, adding only the letters "guk," which suggest the LOGITECH G mark followed by the abbreviation for the United Kingdom ("UK"). The addition of the geographic abbreviation "uk" to a well-known trademark does not avoid confusing similarity; to the contrary, the geographic term tends to reinforce the impression that the Disputed Domain Name designates a Complainant-affiliated United Kingdom presence. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.8; Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consisting of the BITTREX mark with the addition of the letters "btc" and the gTLD ".com" did not distinguish the domain name from the complainant's mark). The gTLD ".com" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LOGITECH Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Parnika Singh," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by LOGITECH under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been licensed or authorized to use the LOGITECH Marks.

 

Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which prominently displays the LOGITECH Marks, purports to offer LOGITECH-branded goods for sale, and reproduces Complainant's copyrighted product photographs. Respondent's Website is plainly designed to give Internet users the false impression that it is operated by, or is otherwise affiliated with or authorized by, Complainant. The use of a domain name to mimic the look and feel of a complainant's official website, while offering competing or unauthorized content under complainant's mark, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017); Logitech International S.A. v. iqbal iqbal walker, FA 1867574 (Forum Nov. 13, 2019) (finding that a website offering downloadable drivers and firmware for products related to the complainant that also displays the complainant's trademark and unauthorized images of its products is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a non-commercial or fair use).

 

Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <logitechguk.com> in 2025, more than four decades after Complainant first established rights in the LOGITECH mark and more than ten years after Complainant established rights in the LOGITECH G mark. The LOGITECH Marks are well-known in the worldwide consumer electronics industry. Respondent's prominent use of the LOGITECH Marks on Respondent's Website, together with Respondent's reproduction of Complainant's copyrighted product photographs and its purported offering of LOGITECH-branded goods, is unmistakable evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the LOGITECH Marks at the time of registration. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.2.1; AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018).

 

Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which is designed to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website by displaying the LOGITECH Marks, purporting to offer LOGITECH-branded goods, and reproducing Complainant's copyrighted product photographs. By creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's LOGITECH Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's Website, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent's Website for Respondent's commercial gain. This conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017); Wahl Clipper Corporation v. rayan cash / gewcorps.com, FA 1898556 (Forum June 26, 2020); Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the contested domain name to offer the same goods and services as the complainant disrupts the complainant's business).

 

Respondent's initial use of a privacy service to conceal its identity, considered together with the other indicators of bad faith present in the record, provides further support for a finding of bad faith. See Save On Energy, LLC v. Joseph Crono, FA 1496896 (Forum June 17, 2013) ("[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").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <logitechguk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: May 6, 2026