Google Inc. v. Aleksandr Ohotov a/k/a Private person
Claim Number: FA0910001292242
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric Ball, California, USA. Respondent is Aleksandr Ohotov a/k/a Private person (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlesearchserver.net>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 29, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 30, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googlesearchserver.net> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On November 5, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 25, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@googlesearchserver.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 3, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <googlesearchserver.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <googlesearchserver.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <googlesearchserver.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Google Inc., operates a well-known Internet search service as well as a wide range of other products and services. Complainant holds many registrations of the GOOGLE mark around the world, including several with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075 issued January 20, 2004).
Respondent registered the <googlesearchserver.net> domain name on June 2, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a blank webpage.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) via its multiple registrations of the mark throughout the world. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <googlesearchserver.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic or descriptive terms
“search” and “server,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.net.” The Panel finds that the terms
“search” and “server,” when added to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in the disputed
domain name, creates a confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark and the
disputed domain name because the terms have an obvious relationship to Complainant’s
offering of Internet search engine services.
See Kohler Co. v.
Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the
complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which
is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term “security” to the complainant’s
VANCE mark, which described the complainant’s business, the respondent “very
significantly increased” the likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark). In addition, the Panel finds that
the addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a registered
mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007)
(concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <googlesearchserver.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent has failed to submit a Response. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The relevant WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Aleksandr Ohotov a/k/a Private person” and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence on record that Respondent has used or intends to use the disputed domain name in any manner. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of good or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (“The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove that domain names are being used in bad faith does not require that it prove in every instance that a respondent is taking positive action. Use in bad faith can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances even when the registrant has done nothing more than register the names.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain
name resolves to a blank page.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 2, 2009 and has
not made an active use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
inactive use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp.,
D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to
make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii)
of the Policy); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar
domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlesearchserver.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum