DECISION

Logitech International S.A. v. fuxin lin

Claim Number: FA2606002226077

PARTIES

Complainant is Logitech International S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher M Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is fuxin lin ("Respondent"), China.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <logitech-peru.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

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 9, 2026; Forum received payment on June 9, 2026.

On June 10, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitech-peru.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 June 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 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@logitech-peru.com.

Also on June 12, 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 July 6, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

On July 7, 2026, the Panel issued a Procedural Order No. 1, directing that at or before 12:00 noon Central Standard Time (CST) on Monday July 13, 2026, Complainant shall provide to Forum, copied to the Respondent: a certified translation into the English language of the Chinese language content in the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, <logitech-peru.com>, provided by the Registrar in its email message to Forum dated June 10, 2026; and not later than four calendar days following receipt of the certified translation Respondent may make submissions in relation to said certified translation to Forum copied to Complainant;

On July 10, 2026, Complainant provided the requested certified translation, and no timely submissions were received from Respondent.

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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

The Registrar has confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.

Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides:

"Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."

While Complainant acknowledges that the Registration Agreement that governs the disputed domain name is in Chinese, Complainant submits that this proceeding should be conducted in English.

Complainant argues that Respondent understands the English language because the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays only English text and that Respondent is using Complainant's LOGITECH mark within the disputed domain name.

The record shows that Respondent is proficient in the English language. As discussed below, the disputed domain name resolves to a website in the English language. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains an invitation from Respondent to Internet users to subscribe to "[g]et timely updates from your favourite products". The Panel finds that Respondent is therefore capable of carrying out its endeavors in the English language,

Notwithstanding that Complainant is a large multi-national corporation and would not be prejudiced by prosecuting the Complaint in any language, taking into account the expense and delay that would result from requiring translations of documents, the Panel directs that the proceedings may proceed in English.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the LOGITECH trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in trade since at least as early as 1982.

Complainant submits that it markets and sells its goods which include keyboards, computer mice, tablet accessories, webcams, portable speakers, headphones, universal remote controls, and provides services under the LOGITECH mark throughout the United States and around the world through retail stores and through online retailers and on its website at <www.logitech.com>.

Complainant submits that its website <www.logitech.com> has been continuously accessible to consumers, and has prominently featured the LOGITECH mark since long before the registration of the disputed domain name, and that the website is critical to Complainant's business to advertise and promote the goods and services Complainant offers under the LOGITECH mark.

Furthermore, Complainant submits that it has an established social media presence on Facebook, X, Instagram and YouTube.

Furthermore, Complainant submits that it holds numerous registrations for the LOGITECH mark outside of the United States and as a result of its worldwide use of the LOGITECH mark, it has an established international goodwill and reputation.

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar its LOGITECH trademark, and argues that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's LOGITECH mark in its entirety; and the only differences between Complainant's LOGITECH mark and the disputed domain name are the addition of a hyphen, the country name "PERU," and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) extension <.com>.

It is submitted that the differences between Complainant's LOGITECH mark and the disputed domain name are insignificant and do nothing to distinguish it from Complainant's mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds "the letters 'btc' and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark.").

Complainant submits that it has therefore satisfied the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

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

· Respondent has never been known or referred to by the disputed domain name any variation thereof;

· Respondent is not associated with Complainant;

· Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent's use of the LOGITECH mark, see Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)");

· Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

· Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service to conceal its identity, see Save On Energy, LLC v. Joseph Crono, FA 1496896 (Forum June 17, 2013) (stating "[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.");

· there is no other entity in the worldwide consumer electronics industry, apart from Complainant, that is known as LOGITECH;

· there is no indication that Respondent or any business or other organization owned or controlled by Respondent has ever been commonly known by or referred to as the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is Respondent's legal name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v Stefan Hansmann / Invertising, FA 1610574 (Forum May 12, 2015) (finding respondent had no rights or legitimate interests where respondent was not commonly known as the disputed domain); and

· the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, a screen capture of which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, illustrates that Respondent in engaged in a clear and willful attempt to impersonate Complainant's official LOGITECH Website or at a minimum a website affiliated with or authorized by Complainant.

Additionally, Complainant submits that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves prominently displays the LOGITECH mark, purports to offer LOGITECH-branded goods for sale, and displays Complainant's copyrighted photos of Complainant's LOGITECH- branded goods.

Complainant submits that Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's LOGITECH mark in the disputed domain name and on the website to which it resolves, is an attempt to create the false impression that Respondent's website is owned by or associated by Complainant and as such does not create rights or legitimate interests for Respondent. See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent uses the domain name to create a false impression that it and its resolving website are affiliated with or hosted by Complainant).

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's LOGITECH mark, and Respondent had constructive or actual notice of Complainant's rights to the LOGITECH mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.

It is clear Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of deceiving consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's Website and thereby disrupting Complainant's business which constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii). See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (Finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the contested <logitechdownload.com> domain name to offer the same goods and services as Complainant disrupts Complainant's business).

When Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2025, Complainant owned a large portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks and had been using its LOGITECH mark for more than 40 years.

Additionally, Complainant contends that given the appearance and content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, including Respondent's unauthorized use of the LOGITECH mark, the display of images of Complainant's LOGITECH-branded products and the purported offering of LOGITECH-branded goods for sale, it is clear Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its prior rights in the LOGITECH mark before registering and using the disputed domain name, and is evidence of Respondent's bad faith. See Logitech International S.A. v. Alexander Walker, FA 1860966 (Forum Sept. 13, 2019) (finding bad faith where Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights).

Furthermore, Complainant submits that its LOGITECH mark is well known and prior panel decisions have held that a respondent's bad faith may be inferred from the registration of a domain that includes a well-known mark. See The Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 7000095314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) ("Registration of a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization and no legitimate purpose to utilize the mark reveals bad faith.").

Moreover, Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's LOGITECH mark and other intellectual property to attract Internet consumers to Respondent's website for Respondent's own financial gain is clear evidence of Respondent's bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. rayan cash / gewcorps.com, FA 1898556 (Forum June 26, 2020) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain resolved to parked page displaying sponsored hyperlinks labeled with terms related to Complainant's Wahl Products).

Complainant adds that although there currently is no evidence of phishing or scamming by Respondent, it is possible that with registration of the disputed domain name, Respondent has access to the "@logitech-peru.com" e-mail address and Respondent could easily use this e-mail address to pass itself off as Complainant or otherwise confuse Complainant's customers with fraudulent emails.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant is a provider of personal peripherals for computers and mobile accessories and is the owner of a large portfolio of trademark registrations for the LOGITECH mark including:

· United States trademark registration LOGITECH, registration number 1,969,025, registered on the Principal Register on April 23, 1996 for goods in international class 9;

· United States trademark registration LOGITECH, registration number 2.835,047, registered on the Principal Register for goods in international class 9;

· United States trademark registration LOGITECH (stylized), registration number 6,687,156, registered on the Principal Register on March 29, 2022 for goods in international classes 9 and 28.

The disputed domain name <logitech-peru.com> was registered on December 1, 2025, and resolves to a website that purports to impersonate Complainant and offer Complainant's LOGITECH branded goods for sale at significantly discounted prices.

Complainant has an established Internet and social media presence and maintains its principal website at <www.logitech.com>.

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 LOGITECH mark, established by its ownership of the registered trademark described above and use of the mark in its international business as a provider of keyboards, computer mice, tablet accessories, webcams, portable speakers, headphones, universal remote controls, and provides services under the LOGITECH mark.

The disputed domain name <logitech-peru.com>, consists of Complainant's LOGITECH mark in its entirety in combination with a hyphen, the country name Peru, and 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, neither the hyphen nor the country name Peru within the disputed domain name prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Additionally, 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 LOGITECH 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 presents itself as Complainant' own website.

It prominently presents Complainant's LOGITECH mark as part of its banner, and displays images of goods, purporting to be those of Complainant, which are offered at large discounts.

The content on the website gives no indication that Respondent is not associated with Complainant in any way. 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

The disputed domain name <logitech-peru.com>, in which LOGITECH is the dominant and only distinguishing element, was registered on December 1, 2025 long after Complainant's earliest registration of the LOGITECH mark on April 23, 1996, and long after Complainant had established its rights and reputation in the use of the mark.

The disputed domain name pointedly consists of Complainant's LOGITECH mark and the country name Peru, which, in combination, infer that it is owned by Complainant for use in accessing the market in Peru.

The content of Respondent's website is entirely devoted to goods which purport to be those produced by Complainant under the LOGITECH mark.

It is therefore implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant, its LOGITECH mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

On the balance of probabilities therefore the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of confusing Internet users and taking predatory advantage of Complainant and its goodwill.

As shown in a screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves purports to present itself as Complainant's website or a website associated with Complainant.

Strangely, notwithstanding that the disputed domain name is the address of the website, and includes the country name Peru, the language of the content of the website is entirely in the English language.

There is nothing in the content of Respondent's website to indicate that it has no association with Complainant. On the contrary it prominently displays Complainant's LOGITECH mark, and is entirely devoted to purporting to offer Complainant's LOGITECH branded products for sale substantial discounts.

Respondent is therefore purporting to impersonate Complainant.

Such use of Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally 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 website; and constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Furthermore, on the website, Respondent presents an invitation to visitors to subscribe to a newsletter to "[g]et timely updates from your favorite products". In circumstances where Respondent is purporting to impersonate Complainant, the request for Internet visitor to provide their email address must give great cause for concern.

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and 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 <logitech-peru.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026