Google Inc. v. Zhou Murong
Claim Number: FA1108001403692
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gavin L. Charlston of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zhou Murong (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The domain names at issue are <googaleme.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googletme.com>, and <googmele.com>, registered with Xiamen Ename Network Technology Corporation Limited d/b/a Ename Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 17, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 18, 2011. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On August 18, 2011, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.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 August 22, 2011, Xiamen Ename Network Technology Corporation Limited d/b/a Ename Corp confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googaleme.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googletme.com>, and <googmele.com> domain names are registered with Xiamen Ename Network Technology Corporation Limited d/b/a Ename Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Xiamen Ename Network Technology Corporation Limited d/b/a Ename Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen Ename Network Technology Corporation Limited d/b/a Ename Corp 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 September 6, 2011, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 2011 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@gloogeoffers.com, postmaster@gloogleartproject.com, postmaster@gloogleoffers.com, postmaster@gogledeals.com, postmaster@gogleebooks.com, postmaster@gogleplush.com, postmaster@gogleshopper.com, postmaster@gogoletv.com, postmaster@googaleme.com, postmaster@googedeals.com, postmaster@googeebooks.com, postmaster@googeldeals.com, postmaster@googeloffers.com, postmaster@googeoffers.com, postmaster@googgle1.com, postmaster@googlaoffers.com, postmaster@googldeals.com, postmaster@googlecloudconnect.com, postmaster@googledals.com, postmaster@googledeas.com, postmaster@googledels.com, postmaster@googledoverse.com, postmaster@googleeboooks.com, postmaster@googleeboos.com, postmaster@googleeffers.com, postmaster@googleinstan.com, postmaster@googleistant.com, postmaster@googleoffees.com, postmaster@googleofferd.com, postmaster@googleoffes.com, postmaster@googleofffers.com, postmaster@googleoffrs.com, postmaster@googletme.com, postmaster@googlewallt.com, postmaster@googlioffers.com, postmaster@googloartproject.com, postmaster@googlooffers.com, postmaster@googmele.com, postmaster@goole1.com, postmaster@gooledeals.com, postmaster@gooleoffers.com, and postmaster@gooogledeals.com. Also on September 6, 2011, the Chinese language 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, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 29, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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" 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, 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googaleme.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googletme.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <googmele.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googaleme.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googletme.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <googmele.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googaleme.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googletme.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <googmele.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Google Inc., was established in 1997 and since that time has offered search engine services worldwide under its GOOGLE mark. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with both the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its GOOGLE mark:
SAIC
Reg. No. 1,451,705 registered September 28, 2000;
Reg. No. 1,473,896 registered November 14, 2000;
USPTO
Reg. No. 1,471,705 registered November 7, 2000;
Reg. No. 2,806,075 registered January 20, 2004;
Reg. No. 2,884,502 registered September 14, 2004;
Reg. No. 2,954,071 registered May 25, 2005;
Reg. No. 4,389,460 registered July 21, 2008;
Reg. No. 3,570,103 registered February 3, 2009; &
Reg. No. 5,556,520 registered December 7, 2009.
Respondent, Zhou Murong, registered the disputed domain names no earlier than September 28, 2010. The disputed domain names resolve to websites containing hyperlinks to third-party websites and also include a hyperlink that allows Internet users to put in offers to purchase the disputed domain names.
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.
Complainant asserts rights in its GOOGLE mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations with the SAIC and the USPTO:
SAIC
Reg. No. 1,451,705 registered September 28, 2000;
Reg. No. 1,473,896 registered November 14, 2000;
USPTO
Reg. No. 1,471,705 registered November 7, 2000;
Reg. No. 2,806,075 registered January 20, 2004;
Reg. No. 2,884,502 registered September 14, 2004;
Reg. No. 2,954,071 registered May 25, 2005;
Reg. No. 4,389,460 registered July 21, 2008;
Reg. No. 3,570,103 registered February 3, 2009; &
Reg. No. 5,556,520 registered December 7, 2009.
The Panel determines that this evidence sufficiently proves that Complainant owns Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in its GOOGLE mark. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations).
Complainant contends that the <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googaleme.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googletme.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <googmele.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, <gooogledeals.com> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. All of the disputed domain names contain Complainant’s GOOGLE mark or a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark that removes a letter, adds a letter, transposes a letter, or exchanges one letter for another letter. All such misspellings have been found by previous panels to be insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA 649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO mark); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”). All of the disputed domain names also contain either a generic term or a descriptive term with some of these terms being misspelled. The Panel determines that these additions fail to remove the disputed domain names from the realm of confusing similarity. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000) (finding the registration and use of multiple domain names incorporating the distinctive and famous YAHOO!, Yahooligans!, and GeoCities marks, together with generic words such as ‘chat’ and ‘financial’ to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”); see also McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Prepress Consultants, Inc., FA 1043195 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2007) (holding that the addition of the descriptive and misspelled term “recipies” to complainant’s mark did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity). All of the disputed domain names contain the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com.” As the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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). 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 names. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Zhou Murong,” and Complainant asserts that it has not authorized Respondent to use its GOOGLE mark. Respondent has not presented any evidence that would allow the Panel to find that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Consequently, the Panel holds that Respondent has not established rights in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. 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).
The disputed domain names all resolve to websites that solely contain hyperlinks to third-party websites. As Complainant has not specified who the third-parties are, and the Panel cannot tell from the provided screen shots, the Panel will assume that the third-parties are not Complainant’s competitors. Complainant does claim that Respondent commercially benefits from the disputed domain names by receiving click-through fees. Based on this evidence, the Panel holds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
Complainant also contends that one of the hyperlinks found on the resolving websites allows the Internet user to make an offer to purchase the disputed domain names. Complainant provides screenshot evidence of this fact. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s general willingness to sell the disputed domain name is additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
As noted above, one of the hyperlinks found on the resolving websites allows Internet users to attempt to purchase the disputed domain names. The Panel infers that Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain names for more than Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding that the attempted sale of a domain name is evidence of bad faith); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
All of the disputed domain names have been previously found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. Respondent is using these confusingly similar disputed domain names to resolve to websites featuring hyperlinks to unrelated third-parties from whom Respondent likely receives click-through fees. As Internet users will likely access the resolving websites because they are confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the websites, the Panel determines that Respondent’s attempt to profit from that confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Complainant also contends that Respondent could not have registered and used the disputed domain names without actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the GOOGLE mark. While constructive notice has not been generally held to suffice for a finding of bad faith registration and use, the Panel may nonetheless find that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) if Respondent is found to have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights. See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). The Panel finds Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <gloogeoffers.com>, <gloogleartproject.com>, <gloogleoffers.com>, <gogledeals.com>, <gogleebooks.com>, <gogleplush.com>, <gogleshopper.com>, <gogoletv.com>, <googaleme.com>, <googedeals.com>, <googeebooks.com>, <googeldeals.com>, <googeloffers.com>, <googeoffers.com>, <googgle1.com>, <googlaoffers.com>, <googldeals.com>, <googlecloudconnect.com>, <googledals.com>, <googledeas.com>, <googledels.com>, <googledoverse.com>, <googleeboooks.com>, <googleeboos.com>, <googleeffers.com>, <googleinstan.com>, <googleistant.com>, <googleoffees.com>, <googleofferd.com>, <googleoffes.com>, <googleofffers.com>, <googleoffrs.com>, <googletme.com>, <googlewallt.com>, <googlioffers.com>, <googloartproject.com>, <googlooffers.com>, <googmele.com>, <goole1.com>, <gooledeals.com>, <gooleoffers.com>, and <gooogledeals.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 30, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page