Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh / THE TECHNICAL BOY
Claim Number: FA1910001866728
Complainant is Arlo Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Erica N. Goven, Nebraska, USA. Respondent is Fateh Singh / THE TECHNICAL BOY ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <arlologin.com>, registered with Google LLC.
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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 14, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 14, 2019.
On October 15, 2019, Google LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <arlologin.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 October 17, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@arlologin.com. Also on October 17, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 manufactures wire-free smart cameras and other smart connected devices, all of which are sold throughout major international markets. Complainant and a predecessor in interest (its former parent company) have used the ARLO mark in connection with these products and related services since at least as early as 2014. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for ARLO and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, including Japanese and Australian registrations for ARLO issued in February 2015 and June 2015, respectively.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <arlologin.com> through a privacy registration service in September 2015. The domain name is being used for a website that displays Complainant's ARLO mark and images and descriptions of Complainant's products, and that promotes support services for Complainant's products. Complainant asserts that the website is designed to create the impression that it is affiliated with Complainant. Complainant further states that when its counsel contacted Respondent using the chat functionality and the U.S. telephone number on the website, Respondent on one occasion claimed to be Complainant, and on the other claimed to be an authorized technical support provider for Complainant. Complainant states that in fact Respondent is not a licensee, service provider, or distributor of Complainant, and has not been authorized to use the ARLO mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <arlologin.com> is confusingly similar to its ARLO mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <arlologin.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ARLO trademark, adding the generic term "login" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. PC Status Inc, FA 1866851 (Forum Nov. 12, 2019) (finding <247arlosupport.com> confusingly similar to ARLO); Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1862783 (Forum Oct. 17, 2019) (finding <arlosupport.xyz> confusingly similar to ARLO); Google LLC v. COD, FA 1849350 (Forum July 28, 2019) (finding <gmail-login.com> confusingly similar to GMAIL). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to promote directly competing services in a manner designed to create the false impression that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., AB Electrolux v. Roayh Net, FA 1791036 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests under similar circumstances, and describing conditions under which an unauthorized service provider may be permitted to use a trademark).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name to promote directly competing services in a manner designed to create the false impression that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. PC Status Inc, supra (finding bad faith under similar circumstances); Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., supra (same); AB Electrolux v. Roayh Net, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arlologin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page