WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-2619 for globallogic.info, glogic.biz

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION GlobalLogic Inc. v. Sav.com LLC, Bmcgroup lab Case No. D2021-2619 1. The Parties

The Complainant is GlobalLogic Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Vasil Kisil & Partners, Ukraine.

The Respondent is Sav.com LLC, United States, Bmcgroup lab, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names and are registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2021. On August 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 23, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 27, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 8, 2021.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has, for over twenty years, traded in digital product engineering under its trademark GLOBALLOGIC in connection with the automotive, communications, financial services, healthcare and life sciences, media and entertainment, manufacturing, semiconductor, and technology industries.

The Complainant employs circa 21,000 employees in 14 countries, and was valued in a transaction with Hitachi Ltd in 2021 at 6.9 billion United States dollars.

The Complainant is the proprietor of International Trademark Registration GLOBALLOGIC No 1122225, registered on April 2, 2012 and Ukrainian Trademark Registration GLOBALLOGIC No 151578, registered on February 10, 2012, in respect of its GLOBALLOGIC trademark, and details of the extensive international reputation of its GLOBALLOGIC trademark have been supplied to the Panel.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2021. The disputed domain name was registered on March 26, 2021. Both disputed domain names resolve to websites (which are identical), which appear to be designed in a manner to create an impression of endorsement by the Complainant. These websites contain the Complainant's GLOBALLOGIC trademark in a prominent position, and also contain an offer to users to invest in the Complainant’s company. The Complainant also points out that the icon that appears on a browser tab of the Respondent’s Websites is identical to website icon on a browser tab used by the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

In connection with the disputed domain name , the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GLOBALLOGIC trademark, comprising solely the Complainant’s GLOBALLOGIC trademark. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that, so far as the Complainant is aware, the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has never received permission from the Complainant to use its GLOBALLOGIC trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith in connection with the website referred to above.

In connection with the disputed domain name , the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GLOBALLOGIC trademark, in particular that the disputed domain name, which comprises the first three letters and the final three letters of the Complainant's GLOBALLOGIC trademark, enables the Complainant’s GLOBALLOGIC trademark to be sufficiently recognizable to justify a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith in connection with the website referred to above.

The Complainant also alleges and provides evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of illegitimate behavior in registering other domain names, targeting the Complainant's GLOBALLOGIC trademark, to the detriment of the Complainant's trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Preliminary Consideration

The Complainant has provided the Panel with evidence that the Respondent has registered a number of domain names in addition to the two disputed domain names at issue in the present case, all, to varying degrees, containing recognizable variants of the Complainant's GLOBALLOGIC trademark and what appears to be the same content, constituting a pattern of abusive domain name registration, leading to damage to the Complainant's interests.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top -level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD’s “.info” and “.biz" to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds.

In connection with the disputed domain name , it is self-evident that a domain name identical to the trademark of a complainant constitutes confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark, and the Panel so finds in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in connection with the disputed domain name .

In connection with the disputed domain name , the Complainant's trademark GLOBALLOGIC contains 11 letters, of which both the sixth and seventh letters are the letter “L". The disputed domain name Contains 6 letters, which are the first three and the final three letters of the Complainant's trademark, giving an indication of an attempt to confuse users. The Panel a user familiar with the Complainant and its products might very well draw a (non-existent) recognition between the two; this is exacerbated or at least affirmed by the Respondent’s use of browser tab icon that copies that used by the Complainant. Given the extent of the reputation of the Complainant's trademark, such users can, in the Panel's opinion, be regarded as the “target" audience for the Respondent's concerted attack on the Complainant's GLOBALLOGIC trademark. The Panel moreover notes the pattern of registrations by the Respondent, both in this case and other instances put into evidence by the Complainant affirm an intent to target the Complainant’s mark by the Respondent – all by causing and playing on Respondent-created user confusion. This, in the Panel's opinion, is sufficient to find confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark, and the Panel so finds.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel considers the above-recorded submissions put forward by the Complainant (including as to a pattern of registrations and the browser tab) as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, in connection with both disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident from the evidence supplied, that the Complainant’s GLOBALLOGIC trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain names, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, in connection with both disputed domain names and so finds.

The Panel is of the opinion that anyone connecting to the website operated under the disputed domain name may incorrectly assume that it was connected to or authorized by the Complainant, and to be, consequently deceived, to the detriment of the Complainant. This in connection with the pattern of registrations and use of the same browser tab by the Respondent as the Complaint uses, in the Panel's opinion, clearly not bona fide use, and justifies a finding of bad faith, and the Panel so finds.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: November 5, 2021

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy