The UDRP against the domain Symcode.net was brought by a company that owns the SYMBOL mark.
Zebra Technologies Corporation operates from Zebra.com and uses SYMBOL as both a stylized and word mark. They also own the domain Symbol.com.
Then why did they go after Symcode.net claiming trademark infringement?
Symcode.net is used by a Chinese company producing barcode scanners among other electronic devices, since 2009, as their web site states:
“Shenzhen alacrity barcode technology Co., Ltd is a professional high-tech manufacturer specializing in the development, manufacture, sale and service of automatic identification products. It is suitable for the customers which are different industry,different scale and different information stage.Our company is established in 2009, We have an R&D team consisting of tens of superb engineers engaged in the design and application of bar code scanning devices in early days in China and a professional team engaged in hardware design and software development.”
In the UDRP, the following claim is made by the Complainant:
“Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert users to the <symcode.net> domain name passing off as Complainant and offering competing goods and services, and this indicates bad faith registration and use. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to operate a phishing scheme. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SYMBOL mark at the time it registered and used the domain name. “
What’s at stake here, is billions of dollars. Symbol was acquired by Motorola in 2007 for $3.9 billion dollars. In 2014, Zebra Technologies acquired Motorola Solutions’ Enterprise business, including Symbol Technologies, for $3.45 dollars billion in cash.
Apparently, the Symcode.net logo was made to look like the corporate logo of Symbol. Whether that was intentional or “accidental” it contributed to the loss of the domain, via the UDRP process.
This part of the decision summarizes these findings:
“Complainant claims, and Respondent makes no attempt to refute, that Respondent’s inclusion of marks similar to Complainant’s logo and registered marks in connection with the sale of directly competitive goods indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights therein. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SYMBOL mark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”
For the details of this UDRP decision, click here.
