Levitonus.com

The timeline behind levitonus.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. he jxing Case No. D2026-3389 1. The Parties The Complainant is Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is he jxing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <levitonus.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2026. On August 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 10, 2026, 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 (Registrant/Owner of Levitonus.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 11, 2026, 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 14, 2026. 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 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2026. The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., a manufacturer of electrical wiring devices, lighting, power and connectivity products, headquartered in Melville, New York, United States. The Complainant has used the trademark LEVITON in connection with the commercialization of lighting, electrical, power and technology-related products. The Complainant is the owner of, among others, the following trademark registrations: Jurisdiction Reg. No. Trademark Registration Date Class(es) United States 4232800 LEVITON October 30, 2012 11 United States 5418948 March 6, 2018 11 United States 6959953 January 24, 2023 9, 11, 25, 35, and 41 The Complainant also owns and operates several domain names incorporating its trademark LEVITON, such as <leviton.com>, registered in 1995, which resolves to its official website. The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2026, using a privacy service. The underlying registrant was identified as he jxing, of China. The disputed domain name resolved to an active website that reproduced the Complainant’s LEVITON logo in an altered form, imitated t he look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, displayed the Complainant’s own business address in Melville, New York, and purported to offer for sale products bearing the Complainant’s trademark, as well as products not offered by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for the cancellation of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: it is the owner of several trademark registrations for Leviton marks in the United States of America, covering goods and services in classes 8, 9, 11, 25, 35, and 41. That it owns the domain name <leviton.com>, which it has used to provide information relating to, and to market the Leviton brand and products since 1995. That the disputed domain name reproduces its trademark LEVITON in its entirety, with the mere addition of the term “us”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. That the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor authorized by the Complainant, holds no trademark rights over the term “leviton”, and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the website to which the disputed domain name resolved imitated the Complainant’s official website and offered page 3 unauthorized, and potentially counterfeit products under the Complainant’s trademark, without any disclaimer as to the absence of a relationship between the parties. That the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, in order to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with said trademark, and as part of a scheme to engage in a pattern of bad faith conduct, given that the Respondent has been named as respondent in at least eight other proceedings under the Policy, including cases concerning domain names formed by adding the term “us” to third-party trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present their case, and also that the administrative proceedings take place with due expeditiousness. The Panel is satisfied that the Center discharged its responsibility under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent and considers it appropriate for the proceedings to continue. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that complainants must prove in order to successfully request remedies: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the Respondent’s default and, therefore, his failure to specifically address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3; see also Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “us” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8; see also Melaleuca, Inc. v. Simei Bert, WIPO Case No. D2026-0667). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7). page 4 The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System and is therefore disregarded for purposes of the analysis under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1). Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As evidenced by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolved reproduced the Complainant’s LEVITON logo in an altered form, imitated the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, displayed the Complainant’s own business address in Melville, New York, United States, and purported to offer for sale products bearing the Complainant’s trademark, as well as products not offered by the Complainant. Such use amounts to passing off as the Complainant, which can neither constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1; see also LEGO Holding A/S v. Amen 01, Fercus, WIPO Case No. D2026-0752). Moreover, the website to which the disputed domain name resolved did not accurately disclose the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. It falsely suggested that it was operated by the Complainant itself, so that the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 are not met (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, the alleged passing itself off as the Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1). Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. page 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 22, 2026, decades after the Complainant had registered and started to use the trademark LEVITON, and that the disputed domain name reproduces that trademark in its entirety, adding only the term “us”, which can be read as a reference to the Complainant’s principal market, the United States. Furthermore, the website to which the disputed domain name resolved displayed the Complainant’s logo, and the Complainant’s own business address in Melville, New York. Under such circumstances, the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant and of its trademark, and targeted them when registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1; Microsoft Corporation v. Prodip Mondal, WIPO Case No. D2026-1184). By using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed it self off as the Complainant and purported to offer for sale products bearing the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of said website and of the products offered therein. Such conduct falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <levitonus.com> be cancelled. /Kiyoshi Tsuru/ Kiyoshi Tsuru Sole Panelist Date: September 25, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.