Complainant is GetGo, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.
Respondent is Duan Xiangwang of Shantou, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with eNom, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 9, 2018. On February 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 13, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 13, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on March 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 2018. 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
According to the Complaint, Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LogMeIn Inc. and the owner of a family of GOTO and GOTO-formative trademarks in the industry of collaborative communications – focused solutions, software and software as a service ("SaaS").
Complainant since as early as October 2001 has itself and its predecessors in interest continuously used the family of GOTO-formative trademarks in connection with computer software, computer networking, data sharing and data transmittal, mobile and web applications and SaaS products. Among Complainant's most recognized GOTO-formative brands is "Gotomeeting", an online video conferencing and remote desktop sharing software platform that enables users to see and speak with other users via the Internet in real time. As per Complaint, since as early as at least 2004, "Gotomeeting" software has been used to create 76 million online meetings per year by nearly 18 million worldwide users per month.
Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the GOTOMEETING mark, including the United States trademark registration no 3,172,020, filed on September 18, 2003, with first use on April 19, 2004, registered on November 14, 2006 for goods and services in International classes 9, 38 and 42 and the European Union trademark registration no 004236584, filed on January 11, 2005, registered on March 8, 2006, for goods and services in International classes 9, 38 and 42. Complainant also has trademark registrations in China for the GOTOMEETING mark in classes 9, 38 and 42.
The Domain Name was registered on July 20, 2010 and redirects to different websites at different times. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the GOTOMEETING mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the GOTOMEETING trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the trademark of Complainant in its entirety. The country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".co" is disregarded, as TLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons only (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn,WIPO Case No. D2017-0275).
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name.
The Domain Name redirects Internet users to different websites at different times. The Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name on, at least, one occasion redirected to the website of a competing software company. This indicates that the Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry competitors (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2015-0403).
Also, as Complainant demonstrates, the Domain Name on occasion intermittently redirected to a website posted at "", which as per general Internet search, may contain malware. The use of a domain name for illegal activity such as distributing malware cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on a Respondent (Twitter, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2013-062).
Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrates, Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names that infringe trademarks of third parties.
These circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, "in particular but without limitation," are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in "bad faith":
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. As per Complaint, Complainant's GOTOMEETING trademark "is well-known in the industry of collaborative communications-focused solutions, software and software as a service". Because the GOTOMEETING mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering this Domain Name.
Respondent should have known about Complainant's rights, due to the fact that Complainant's mark had significant goodwill and reputation globally when the Domain Name was registered. Furthermore, such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search due to Complainant's wide use of GOTOMEETING mark on the Internet ("m") (Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. C / Vertical Axis Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0462). This also in view of the nature of Complainant's services, namely video conferencing services provided online.
Respondent could have searched the United States or European Union trademark registries and should have found Complainant's prior registrations in respect of GOTOMEETING (Citrix Online LLC v. Ramalinga Reddy Sanikommu Venkata,WIPO Case No. D2012-1338, noting that Respondent should have known of Complainant's GOTOTRAINING trademark application before choosing to register ).
Lastly, as Complainant demonstrates, Respondent is engaged in a series of domain name registrations that infringe trademarks of third parties (WordPress Foundation v. duanxiangwang,WIPO Case No. D2013-2174; Tumblr, Inc. v. duanxiangwang,WIPO Case No. D2013-0441; Chanel, Inc. v. Duanxiangwang,WIPO Case No. D2012-1632; WordPress Foundation v. duanxiangwang,WIPO Case No. D2011-0836).
This pattern can be used in support of bad faith registrations (Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2007-1664; Doctor. Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Stoneybrook Investment Limited,WIPO Case No. D2001-1095; The Procter & Gamble Company v. Whoisguard, Inc. / Enzo Gucci, Xtremcare, Tony Mancini, USDIET, USDIET Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2016-1881).
As regards bad faith use, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name is used for redirecting users to a competing software company's website and will also on occasion redirect users to a webpage at "" which, based on Internet search, suggests that the website may harbor malware. Registration of a disputed domain name for redirecting Internet users, including customers and potential customers of Complainant to the website of a competitor of Complainant, constitutes bad faith registration and use (Industrietechnik GmbH v. Kevin Caulfield,WIPO Case No. D2015-0725; Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2015-0403).
Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds no good-faith basis for Respondent's conduct vis-à-vis the Domain Name.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: April 11, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy