Logitech International S.A. v. Melanie Herber / Logitech
Claim Number: FA2306002049698
Complainant is Logitech International S.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Melanie Herber / Logitech (“Respondent”), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <logitech-shop.co>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 20, 2023; Forum received payment on June 20, 2023.
On June 20, 2023, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <logitech-shop.co> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 June 21, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 11, 2023 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-shop.co. Also on June 21, 2023, 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 14, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a leading worldwide provider of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, music and smart home. Complainant asserts rights in the LOGITECH mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1996. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its LOGITECH mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the generic term “shop”, as well as the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.co”.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its LOGITECH mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is deceiving customers as to the source of its website, thus disrupting Complainant’s business by purporting to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOGITECH mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information is false: the street address shown in the WHOIS is that of a government building.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark LOGITECH and uses it to market a variety of peripherals and accessories for PCs and smartphones. The mark was registered in 1996.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.
The resolving website offers unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products; it displays Complainant’s mark and logo.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s LOGITECH mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the generic term “shop”, as well as the country-code top level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” (contrary to Complainant’s allegation that the TLD in question is a gTLD). The addition of a hyphen, generic term, and TLD (whether ccTLD or gTLD) fails sufficiently to differentiate a mark from a disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOGITECH mark per Policy 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s LOGITECH mark in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant’s mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as “Melanie Herber / Logitech” but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the LOGITECH mark. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“A complainant can use assertions of passing off and offering competing goods or services to evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014)(finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that the street address given in the WHOIS, namely “18 Rue des Batignolles, Paris, France”, is the address of a government building, but it does not provide any evidence to support that allegation. As noted above, the Panel need not consider allegations not supported by evidence. See by analogy Richard Izzo Toughman Enterprises v. TJ Tryon, FA1704001728347 (Forum May 30, 2017) (“While this Panel is willing to give Complainant some leeway because Complainant is pro se, that does not allow Complainant to ignore its burden of proof. A complainant fails to make a prima facie case when it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever of a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name.”); see also Chrome Bones / CB Luxury Brands, LLC v. Laursen, Shawn / Shawn's pasta & bake shop, FA1805001787926 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“Complainant’s evidence of secondary meaning consists only of its unsupported assertion that it has used the mark since 2000. … Respondent’s default in this matter notwithstanding, the evidence before the Panel utterly fails to demonstrate that Complainant’s trademark rights accrued prior to April 2003, when Respondent registered the Domain Name.”).
However, according to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
From publicly available databases, the Panel has found that the street address referred to above corresponds to the Paris 17th district town hall (“Mairie du 17ème arrondissement de Paris”).
Since the registrant is not the town hall, the WHOIS information is false, and this can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (NAF Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (NAF Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (NAF May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (NAF June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (NAF July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (NAF Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, Case No. FA1407001571172 (NAF Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent’s bad faith was “apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name’s website are legitimate…”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and photos of Complainant’s products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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-shop.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 14, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page