WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


GlobalLogic Inc. v. bmcgroup lab

Case No. D2021-3137

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is bmcgroup lab, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <global-logic.biz> and <global-logic.co> 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 September 23, 2021. On September 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 24, 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 September 30, 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 September 30, 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 October 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 31, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2021.

The Center appointed William A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 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 is a global corporation concerned with digital product engineering. It is headquartered in Silicon Valley, United States, and operates design studios and engineering centers around the world. The Complainant was founded in 2000 and at the time of its take-over by Hitachi Ltd in 2021 was valued at USD 9,6 billion, with 21,000 employees in 14 countries. The Complainant is said to be particularly familiar to Russian-speaking audiences.

The Complainant operates an official website at “www.globallogic.com”, registered on March 29, 2000 and has approximately 326,933 visits per month.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of international trademark registration No. 1122225 as of April 2, 2012, for the word GLOBALLOGIC in relation to International class 42 – design and development of computer hardware and software. Protection of this trademark is granted in all countries of the European Union and in the United States.

Since 2006 the Complainant has had a business presence in Ukraine through an affiliated legal entity - GlobalLogic Ukraine LLC. This company is the owner of several Ukrainian trademark registrations, in particular: No. 151578, application date January 10, .2012, valid till August 8, 2031, for the wordmark GLOBALLOGIC registered in International classes 9, 35, 41, 42; No. 151579, application date August 1, 2011, wordmark ГлобалЛоджик (Cyrillic transliteration of “GlobalLogic”) registered for International e classes 9, 35, 41, 42.

The disputed domain name <global-logic.co> was registered on February 17, 2021, and the disputed domain name <global-logic.biz> was registered on December 19, 2020. The disputed domain names are used in connection with websites that have a similar look and feel to the website owned and operated by the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

According to the Complainant, a side-by-side comparison of the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names clearly demonstrates that the latter incorporate the trademark entirely. The Complainant notes that its trademark is targeted by the Respondent with a pattern of registrations of multiple domain names encompassing the mark. The disputed domain names are said to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GLOBALLOGIC trademark.

The Complainant says that it has neither licensed not otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for any domain name registrations incorporating it. The Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights to GLOBALLOGIC and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, the Complainant asserts.

The Complainant says its rights to the GLOBALLOGIC trademark preceded the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by several years. The Complainant says that the websites (which are identical) to which the disputed domain names resolve show no evidence proving that the Respondent uses or is preparing to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names; or is commonly known by the disputed domain names. On the contrary, the Respondent creates the strong impression that it is affiliated with the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the relevant websites are used for fraudulent activity as they display offers to consumers to invest in the Complainant’s company. The design of the websites creates the impression of false endorsement, i.e. that such investment offers are made on behalf of the Complainant or with its authorization. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is pursuing commercial gain by diverting consumers and tarnishes the trademark at issue in the process. The Respondent’s activities amount to wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain and constitute fraud.

The Complainant points out that prior UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (section 2.13. of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview”)). Further, the Respondent is said to have improperly masked its identity by using a legal entity with the same name as the Complainant to avoid being contactable and to mislead consumers for commercial purposes.

The Complainant states that the content of both relevant websites is identical and set out in the Russian language. “GlobalLogic” phrase appears in the right-hand corner of the home web page of the websites with the phrase “Innovation by design” below. This phrase enhances the impression that an actual connection exists between the Complainant and the Respondent as it is closely related to the Complainant’s design-research services. Further, the icon appearing on browser tabs of the Respondent’s relevant websites is identical to the website icon on a browser tab used by the Complainant. The Complainant maintains that the imitation of visual elements of the Complainant’s official website could result in the actual confusion of customers.

Further, the Complainant points out that the webpages “About company” on the relevant websites contain information about activities, including methods, instruments, and services of “Global Logic Company”. By placing information about the Complainant on the websites, the Respondent misleads consumers into believing that they are official websites or belong to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the description of “Global Logic Company” is copied from the Wikipedia page dedicated to the Complainant.

The webpage “About company” also contains two attached documents, which are a certificate of registration of a Russian Federation organization with the Russian tax authority, and an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities of the Russian Federation. These allegedly confirm the registration of the Respondent’s legal entity. However, these certificates are not valid and are misleading and only seek to give the false impression of a genuine affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant says that the Respondent’s failure to correctly identify the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent’s apparent company demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to mislead consumers.

The Complainant also points out, in relation to the apparent legal entity ‘bmcgroup’, that the identification number supplied by the Respondent does not in fact identity and legal entity officially registered in Ukraine or in the Russian Federation; nor does the Ukrainian register contain reference to any legal entity that has that name; and the indicated address does not in fact exist. According to the Complainant, this clearly indicates that the Respondent is well aware of the illegality of its activities on the relevant websites. On their home page, customers are encouraged to invest money by registration on the website, deposit, and disposing of profit. The highlighted words “safely”, “profitably” and the highlighted footer “start earning money”, supported by the Complainant’s trademark in the corner of the webpage, would easily attract consumers and increase their trust which primarily derives from the Complainant’s high reputation and large client base. According to the Complainant, the Respondent uses further tricks to create the illusion that the relevant websites have an official status, such as including “advantages of working with us” on the website, those being said to be “stable income”, “automated system”, “the low payment amount of the first investment – ₽10 (Russian roubles)”. Further there is mention of the Complainant’s company statistics; and a client agreement that is accessible before registration.

The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain names are not the first and only domain names created to target the GLOBALLOGIC trademark, and the Complainant says that it has already filed a complaint with the Center regarding domain names <globallogic.info> and <glogic.biz> (GlobalLogic Inc. v. Sav.com LLC, Bmcgroup lab, WIPO Case No. D2021-2619). Such a range of fraudulent domain names which target the Complainant’s trademark is said to demonstrate a pattern of unfaithful behavior by the Respondent.

For these reasons, the Complainant says, the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

As the “.biz” and “.co” extensions should be disregarded, the disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark GLOBALLOGIC of the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not reacted to any of the contentions of the Complainant. The disputed domain names resolve to identical websites that are clearly established with the goal of misleading consumers into thinking that they are official websites of the Complainant. They further evince an attempt to extract some financial advantage from unwitting Internet users by way of their fraudulent imitation of the Complainant’s official Internet presence. The Respondent is obviously not authorized to establish websites in Ukraine in this manner and has attempted to disguise its illegitimate usurping of the Complainant’s identity by various devious means. None of these practices are of a kind to give rise to rights or the recognition of any legitimate interests.

Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The facts referred to above indicate bad faith, both in the registration of the disputed domain names and in their use. It is clear from all the circumstances of use of the disputed domain names, resolving to imitation websites as they do, that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s reputation and rights in the GLOBALLOGIC trademarks at the time of registration. The structure and content and elaborate attempts at deceiving consumers by mimicking the Complainant’s legitimate web presence and further false documentation, are testament to the bad faith of the Respondent. The latter was attempting to use the disputed domain names for the sake of obtaining some illegitimate advantage from unsuspecting consumers, misled by the nature of the domain names themselves and the appearance and content of the websites to which they resolve.

Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

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 <global-logic.biz> and <global-logic.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

William A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Date: November 30, 2021