Arlo Technologies, Inc. v. Aman / Aman Deep
Claim Number: FA2012001924260
Complainant is Arlo Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erica N. Goven, California, USA. Respondent is Aman / Aman Deep (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <arlocaltech.online> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Hostinger, UAB.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 8, 2020.
On December 10, 2020, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <arlocaltech.online> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 December 15, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 4, 2021 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@arlocaltech.online. Also on December 15, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 11, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the ARLO mark registered, inter alia, in the USA for cameras with first use recorded as 2014.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark incorporating it in its entirety and adding only the generic terms ‘cal’ and ‘tech’ and the gTLD “.online” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for a commercial web site offering services in relation to the Complainant’s products using a similar white and green colour scheme as the Complainant’s official site and which is holding itself out as an authorized site of the Complainant when it is not. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the ARLO mark registered, inter alia, in the USA for cameras with first use recorded as 2014.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for a site offering services in relation to the Complainant’s products which is using a similar white and green colour scheme to the Complainant’s official web site and which is holding itself out as an authorized site of the Complainant when it is not.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's ARLO mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for cameras with first use recorded as 2014), the generic terms ‘cal’ and ‘tech’ and the gTLD “.online”.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms ‘cal’ and ‘tech’ to the Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name do not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (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). The use of the web site attached to the Domain Name is commercial so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's mark and a similar colour scheme to the Complainant’s official web site to offer competing services to the Complainant and represents that it is an authorized site of the Complainant when it is not. The Panel finds this deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses a similar colour scheme to the Complainant’s web site to offer competing services and represents that it is an authorized site of the Complainant when it is not.
The reference to the Complainant’s products and the similar colour scheme on the Respondent’s web site shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arlocaltech.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page