Complainant is LogMeIn, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.
Respondent is Nanci Nette, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 22, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 26, 2019.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2019. 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
Complainant, LogMeIn, Inc. is a provider of software as a service and cloud-based remote connectivity service for business collaboration, IT management and customer engagement. Complainant is based in the United States with a place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Complainant owns and uses the mark GOTOMEETING in connection with an online video conferencing and remote desktop sharing platform. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the mark GOTOMEETING in various jurisdictions, including a registration in the United States (No. 3,172,020), which issued to registration on November 14, 2006. Complainant also owns and uses the domain name to promote and provide information regarding its GOTOMEETING video conferencing and desktop sharing platform.
Respondent is an individual based in Los Angeles, California, United States. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 20, 2014. Respondent has used the disputed domain to redirect web users to various third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it owns rights in the GOTOMEETING mark by virtue of its use of the GOTOMEETING mark since 2004 and by virtue of the numerous trademark registrations Complainant owns for the GOTOMEETING mark.
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark as it incorporates Complainant’s exact GOTOMEETING mark in its entirety.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (iii) does not have a license or permission to use Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark in the disputed domain name, and (ii) has used the disputed domain name to redirect web users to various third party websites unconnected to Complainant. In that regard, Complainant contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name, at times, to redirect web users to Complainant’s website at after cycling through various URL destinations not owned or connected to Complainant, and, at other times, to a suspicious looking webpage that appears to be an attempt to distribute malware, adware or some other undesired application.
Lastly, Complainant maintains that Respondent registered and had used the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name solely and entirely consists of Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark and has been used to redirect web users to unrelated third party websites or to Complainant’s website after cycling through various URL destinations. Given that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website at , Complainant argues that Respondent clearly knew about Complainant and its services when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent’s bad faith registration and use is established by the fact that Respondent has been found in a number of UDRP decisions of having registered and used domain names in bad faith that are based on third party trademarks. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) 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.
Here, although Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, nor is it an admission that Complainant’s claims are true. The burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A panel, however, may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case, such as regarding factual allegations that are not inherently implausible as being true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”); see also The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD,WIPO Case No. D2006-0340. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations for the GOTOMEETING mark in connection with its video conferencing and desktop sharing software platform that issued before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Complainant has also submitted evidence that it owns and has used the domain name in connection with a website that promotes Complainant’s GOTOMEETING product.
With Complainant’s rights in the GOTOMEETING mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the country code Top‑Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me” is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. The threshold for satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold.
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark as it fully and solely consists of Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark disregarding the ccTLD extension “.me”. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once the complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.
The evidence submitted in this proceeding shows that Respondent registered the disputed domain name that is identical to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark and has only used the disputed domain name to redirect web users to either third party websites that offer products or services unrelated to Complainant, or to Complainant’s website after circulating through various URLs. It thus appears more likely than not that Respondent, who has failed to respond or contest this matter, was aware of Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name. As there is no evidence showing that Respondent has made any bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name, it is likewise likely, on the balance of the probabilities, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for purposes of exploiting Complainant’s established rights in the GOTOMEETING mark for Respondent’s benefit, and not for some other purpose.
In sum, given that Complainant has established with sufficient evidence that it owns rights in the GOTOMEETING mark, and given Respondent’s above noted actions and failure to file a response, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are evident in this case. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the similarity between the GOTOMEETING mark and the disputed domain name, it is easy to infer that Respondent was likely aware of Complainant’s rights in the GOTOMEETING mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name and started using it to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website at “www.” after cycling through various URLs. The totality of the circumstances as shown by the evidence submitted, none of which is contradicted or contested by Respondent, makes clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name after Complainant had established rights in the GOTOMEETING mark, and has, since that time, used the disputed domain name for the benefit of Respondent as a redirect to various third party websites. In view of Respondent’s pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names based on the trademarks of others, as demonstrated by at least eleven prior UDRP decisions that ruled against Respondent, it appears unlikely that Respondent had any legitimate purpose for registering and using the disputed domain name either at the time of registration or going forward.
In sum, what the evidence shows here is that Respondent more likely than not knowingly registered and has used the disputed name in bad faith to opportunistically exploit or profit from Complainant’s rights in the GOTOMEETING name and mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under this element 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 name be transferred to Complainant.
Georges Nahitchevansky
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy