Astro-headset.com

The timeline behind astro-headset.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.

DECISION Logitech Europe S.A. v. tou du Claim Number: FA2506002161473 PARTIES Complainant is Logitech Europe S.A. ("Complainant"), represented by Christopher Dolan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is tou du ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <astro-headset.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 18, 2025; Forum received payment on June 18, 2025. On June 20, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <astro-headset.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On June 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 10, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@astro-headset.com. Also on June 20, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 11, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as followed: Complainant is a leading worldwide provider of personal peripherals and computer and mobile accessories for PC navigation, video communication and collaboration, music and smart home, and gaming. Complainant's products include keyboards, computer mice, tablet accessories, webcams, portable speakers, headphones, universal remotes, gaming headsets, gaming controllers, and more. Since at least as early as 2007, Complainant, through its predecessors in interest, has used its trademark ASTRO in connection with the sale and promotion of Complainant's goods. In addition to its extensive common law trademark rights in the ASTRO mark, Complainant owns an extensive worldwide portfolio of registrations for the mark, including the registrations in the United States for a stylized version of ASTRO and the word mark ASTRO GAMING. The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ASTRO mark. To demonstrate that a domain name is confusingly similar to a Complainant's trademark pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant need only demonstrate that its mark is included in the at-issue domain name. Here, the domain name incorporates Complainant's ASTRO mark in its entirety. The only differences between the domain name and Complainant's ASTRO mark are the addition a hyphen, the generic term "headset," and the generic top-level domain Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent has never been known or referred to by the at-issue domain name or any variation thereof; is not affiliated with, licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the ASTRO mark; and has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website creates a false impression by prominently displaying Complainant's trademarks, photos of Complainant's products, and other information so that internet users will be confused into mistakenly believing Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website is affiliated with or hosted, sponsored, or authorized by Complainant, when it is not. Respondent's website is intentionally designed to deceive internet users. Even if Respondent is properly reselling Complainant's ASTRO-branded products, which it is not, a re-seller, even an authorized re-seller, cannot use another's trademark in a domain name without the express consent of the owner of the mark. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith. Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith because the domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's ASTRO mark; Respondent had constructive or actual notice of Complainant's rights to Complainant's marks; and Respondent is using Complainant's ASTRO mark in the domain name in an attempt to attract internet users to Respondent's website for its own financial gain. Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of deceiving consumers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and thereby disrupting Complainant's business. Respondent registered the <astro-headset.com> in 2024; Complainant had been using its ASTRO mark for more than 15 years and had owned registration for the ASTRO mark for more than ten years. This indicates that Respondent had constructive, if not actual, notice of Complainant's rights to the ASTRO mark prior to registering <astro-headset.com>. In addition, given Respondent's prominent use of the ASTRO mark and photos of Complainant's ASTRO-branded products on Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website to pass off Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website as Complainant's ASTRO website, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's ASTRO mark prior to registering and using the at-issue domain name. This is clear evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Additionally, Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's ASTRO mark to attract internet consumers to Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website using the at-issue domain name without Complainant's authorization for Respondent's own financial gain, and to disrupt Complainant's business, is evidence of Respondent's bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the ASTRO trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ASTRO trademark. Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses a website made to appear like it might be Complainant's genuine website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant to divert consumers to Respondent's sham website. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO registrations for ASTRO and having the literal element ASTRO are each sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <astro-headset.com> domain name contains Complainant's ASTRO mark followed by a hyphen and the suggestive term "headset," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish such domain name from Complainant's ASTRO mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018)("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.") Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.") The WHOIS information for <astro-headset.com> indicates that "tou du" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <astro-headset.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the confusingly similar <astro-headset.com> domain name to direct internet consumers to a website posing as if it is a genuine website of Complainant. Respondent's use of <astro-headset.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and thereby divert internet traffic to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting internet users to a competing commercial site); see also, Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <astro-headset.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <astro-headset.com> website. Respondent uses its website to pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its associated website are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <astro-headset.com> domain name and Complainant's ASTRO trademark. Respondent's use of <astro-headset.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.") Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ASTRO mark when it registered <astro-headset.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and from Respondent's use of <astro-headset.com> to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ASTRO further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <astro-headset.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <astro-headset.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: July 13, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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