DECISION

 

Learning Sciences International v. HERI IMAWAN

Claim Number: FA2606002225318

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Learning Sciences International ("Complainant"), represented by Brian P. Gregg of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is HERI IMAWAN ("Respondent"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <iobservation.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 4, 2026; Forum received payment on June 4, 2026.

 

On June 5, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <iobservation.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 30, 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@iobservation.com.

 

Also on June 10, 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 July 1, 2026 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the IOBSERVATION mark established by its ownership of the trademark registrations described below and use of the mark in its business providing downloadable and online software for use in observing educational classrooms and teachers and conducting classroom walkthroughs.

 

Complainant submits that its rights in the IOBSERVATION trademark date back to as early as July 15, 2007, when it first began using the mark in connection with its software for classroom and teacher observation.

Complainant submits that its IOBSERVATION software platform is a leading educational industry product. The IOBSERVATION brand is responsible for $69 million in revenues since its inception.

 

Conservatively, the Complainant has invested $1.5M in marketing its IOBSERVATION branded products.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to the IOBSERVATION mark because it consists of the identical term which comprises the IOBERVATION mark and except for the gTLD extension <.com>.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is likely to cause consumer confusion. Consumers are likely to think that the use of IOBSERVATION mark in the disputed domain name indicates a product or service offered by or endorsed by Complainant. It is further argued that such consumer confusion is likely to cause reputational damage to Complainant and loss of revenue for Complainant.

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing:

·       Complainant has continuously used the IOBSERVATION mark in connection with a variety of educational goods and services, including downloadable and online software, since as early as July 15, 2007;

·       Complainant was developing rights in the IOBSERVATION mark for over eighteen years before Respondent's purchase of the disputed domain name;

·       Complainant continues to advertise, promote and sell its IOBSERVATION branded software and services;

·       due to an administrative oversight which occurred in connection with the account responsible for renewing the disputed domain name, Complainant's ownership in the disputed domain name lapsed;

·       the error was expediently noticed by Complainant, and this lapse did not affect Complainant's longstanding trademark rights;

·       Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the disputed domain name or the IOBSERVATION mark.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services at the disputed domain name and has made no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain. Instead, Respondent is engaged in classic cybersquatting—acquiring a domain incorporating another's trademark, retaining the trademark holder's content to capture existing traffic and search engine presence, and monetizing that traffic through unrelated commercial content.

 

It is contended that this pattern of conduct satisfies both the registration and use prongs of the bad faith requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainant refers to its registered trademark rights in the IOBSERVATION mark and argues that Respondent has no known trademarks which would suggest it has rights to the disputed domain name.

 

On May 28, 2026, Complainant discovered that the disputed domain name was no longer under the control of Complainant and that the disputed domain name was purchased by an unknown entity three months prior; it is believed the purchase was made on February 27, 2026.

 

A cloned version of the old website to which the disputed domain name resolved was restored at the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name shortly upon expiration, demonstrating that Respondent was actively monitoring the disputed domain name's registration status and deliberately waiting to acquire it.

 

This pattern of conduct—targeting a domain immediately upon expiration—is a hallmark of opportunistic bad faith registration. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1 (noting that registration of a domain immediately after it lapses from a prior registrant supports a finding of bad faith where the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant's rights).

 

A screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that the forensic Built With tool returned a list of additional inbound redirects to the Domain Name from other sites.

 

All of these redirects identified by Built With, except one, were first detected in March or April 2026, indicating these sites and now iobservation.com may be part of a network of other domain names acquired by this same entity.

 

The advertising on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves provides a link to an online casino based in Indonesia.

 

Complainant argues that therefore Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's IOBSERVATION mark at the time of registration; and that Complainant's federal trademark registrations provide constructive notice to all parties of Complainant's rights. See 15 U.S.C. § 1072.

 

Moreover, Respondent's subsequent conduct demonstrates actual knowledge: Respondent restored a cloned version of Complainant's website to which the disputed domain name resolves, prominently displaying the IOBSERVATION mark and retaining Complainant's original content.

 

It is submitted that this deliberate preservation of Complainant's branding and content establishes that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's trademark rights and intentionally sought to exploit the goodwill associated with the IOBSERVATION mark.

 

Complainant refers to a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint and submits that it illustrates that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a website featuring an initial splash page advertising an online gambling site , while simultaneously displaying substantial portions of Complainant's prior website content. The website content includes the IOBSERVATION mark, background information about Complainant, a link to Complainant's International website, references to Complainant's educational frameworks, and the majority of Complainant's original product and service descriptions including Complainant's copyright notice "© 2023 Learning Sciences International. All rights reserved".

 

Complainant argues that this calculated co-mingling of illicit gambling content with Complainant's legitimate educational brand demonstrates intentional exploitation of Complainant's goodwill and trademark recognition to drive traffic for commercial gain.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect visitors seeking Complainant's educational software services to online casino content constitutes bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Furthermore, it is argued that Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name acquiring a domain incorporating Complainant's registered trademark and leveraging the domain's established traffic, search engine rankings, and brand recognition, Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a supplier of downloadable and online software for use in observing educational classrooms and teachers and conducting classroom walkthroughs. Complainant owns the following:

·       United States registered trademark IOBSERVATION and design, registration number 3,417,894, registered on the Principal Register on April 29, 2008 for goods in international class 9;

·       United States registered trademark IOBSERVATION and design, registration number 4,048,547 registered on the Principal Register on November 1, 2011 for services in international Class 42.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and provides its software online in downloadable format.

 

The disputed domain name <iobservation.com> was registered on January 15, 2007 and resolves to a website that it a clone of Complainant's former website and presents links to a gambling website.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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

Complainant has provided convincing, uncontested evidence that it has rights in the IOBSERVATION mark.

 

Complainant has claimed, but unfortunately has not provided any evidence to support its claim that the IOBSERVATION brand is responsible for $69 million in revenues since its inception, and conservatively, the Complainant has invested $1.5M in marketing its IOBSERVATION branded products.

 

The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's IOBSERVATION mark in its entirety in combination with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

It is well accepted that in cases where a domain name at issue incorporates the entirety of a trademark, it will be considered that the complainant has satisfied the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Furthermore, it is well accepted that that gTLD extensions may be ignored for the purposes of comparison because they are a necessary technical requirement for a domain name registration.

 

Applying these principles this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IOBSERVATION mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website which is a clone of Complainant's former website. This indicates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to carry out any bona fide or legitimate business, but instead is purporting to impersonate Complainant.

 

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 paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

While Complainant has not provided any evidence of its use of the IOBSERVATION mark, it is clear from the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, that it has in the past hosted a website which Respondent has copied.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2007, and the evidence adduced in the form of trademark searches, shows that Complainant's trademark application for IOBSERVATION and design was filed on August 14, 2008. The Panel finds that those dates support Complainant's submission that it owned the disputed domain name and the registration was allowed to lapse.

 

It is surprising that Complainant was not aware that it had lost control of the disputed domain name until May 20, 2026, and it is also surprising that Complainant alleges that Respondent purchased the lapsed registration on February 27, 2026, when the WhoIs evidence is that the expiration date is January 15. Nonetheless, in the absence of any Response the Panel accepts that Respondent purchased the disputed domain name after it had gone out of the control of Complainant.

 

The uncontested evidence is that Respondent has published a cloned version of Complainant's former website to which the restored disputed domain name resolves.

 

The Panel finds that by copying Complainant's former website and purporting to impersonate Complainant, it follows that on the balance of probabilities Respondent was aware of Complainant and its business when the disputed domain name was registered.

 

The Panel finds therefore that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in an opportunistic endeavor to take predatory advantage of Complainant and its rights in the IOBSERVATION mark.

 

Furthermore, the uncontested evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website that is a clone of Complainant's former website and which contains links to a gambling site which allows this Panel to find that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds therefore that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as the address of a website, which intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site.

 

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

 

 

___________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: July 2, 2026