national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Google Inc. v. Shuying Zhang / - / zhang shuying

Claim Number: FA1206001449297

and

Google Inc. v. zhang shu ying/ zhangshuying / LinYu / Xiamen eName Technology Co.,Ltd.

Claim Number: FA1207001455178

 

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gavin L. Charlston of Cooley LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Shuying Zhang / - / zhang shuying/ zhang shu ying/ zhangshuying / LinYu / Xiamen eName Technology (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <agogle.com>, <androia.com>, <googai.com>, <googlbe.com>, <googleamps.com>, <googlecharome.com>, <googlecherome.com>, <googlenaps.com>, <googleshrome.com>, <googoleearth.com>, <gooygle.com>, <uyutube.com>, <webgmail.com>, <wwwgoogla.com>, <wwwgoogloe.com>, <wwwmgoogle.com>, <wwwyoutuobe.com>, and <yytube.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, LLC, and <googelemaps.com>, <googleail.com>,  <googleamaps.com>, <googleboooks.com>, <googledocs.net><googleimeges.com>, <googleka.com>, <googlelmaps.com>, <googlemaiol.com>, <googlemamps.com>, <googlemaops.com>, <googlemapc.com>, <googlemasps.com>, <googlemsil.com>, <googlemsps.com>, <googlermaps.com>, <googlwmail.com>, and <wwwgooglechrome.com>, registered with Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd, and <googldocs.com>, <googleamail.com>, <googlechrme.com>, <googleimags.com>, <googleimges.com>, <googlelaps.com>, and <googltalk.com>, registered with Ename Technology Co., Ltd.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint, Claim Number FA1206001449297,

 to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 18, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 19, 2012.

 

On June 19, 2012; Jul 10, 2012; Jul 17, 2012, Godaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <agogle.com>, <androia.com>, <googai.com>, <googlbe.com>, <googleamps.com>, <googlecharome.com>, <googlecherome.com>, <googlenaps.com>, <googleshrome.com>, <googoleearth.com>, <gooygle.com>, <uyutube.com>, <webgmail.com>, <wwwgoogla.com>, <wwwgoogloe.com>, <wwwmgoogle.com>, <wwwyoutuobe.com>, and <yytube.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Godaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, LLC 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 July 26, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2012 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@agogle.com, postmaster@androia.com, postmaster@googai.com, postmaster@googlbe.com, postmaster@googleamps.com, postmaster@googlecharome.com, postmaster@googlecherome.com, postmaster@googlenaps.com, postmaster@googleshrome.com, postmaster@googoleearth.com, postmaster@gooygle.com, postmaster@uyutube.com, postmaster@webgmail.com, postmaster@wwwgoogla.com, postmaster@wwwgoogloe.com, postmaster@wwwmgoogle.com, postmaster@wwwyoutuobe.com, and postmaster@yytube.com.  Also on July 26, 2012, 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, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

Complainant submitted a second Complaint, Claim Number FA1207001455178,

to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 24, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 25, 2012.  The Complaint was received in English and Chinese.

 

On July 1, 2012, Ename Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googldocs.com>, <googleamail.com>, <googlechrme.com>, <googleimags.com>, <googleimges.com>, <googlelaps.com>, and <googltalk.com> domain names are registered with Ename Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Ename Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ename Technology Co., Ltd. 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 July 9, 2012, Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the googelemaps.com>, <googleail.com>,  <googleamaps.com>, <googleboooks.com>, <googledocs.net><googleimeges.com>, <googleka.com>, <googlelmaps.com>, <googlemaiol.com>, <googlemamps.com>, <googlemaops.com>, <googlemapc.com>, <googlemasps.com>, <googlemsil.com>, <googlemsps.com>, <googlermaps.com>, <googlwmail.com>, and <wwwgooglechrome.com> domain names are registered with Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Guangzhou Ming Yang Information Technology Co., Ltd 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 July 31, 2012, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 2012 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@googelemaps.com, postmaster@googldocs.com, postmaster@googleail.com, postmaster@googleamail.com, postmaster@googleamaps.com, postmaster@googleboooks.com, postmaster@googlechrme.com, postmaster@googledocs.net, postmaster@googleimags.com, postmaster@googleimeges.com, postmaster@googleimges.com, postmaster@googleka.com, postmaster@googlelaps.com, postmaster@googlelmaps.com, postmaster@googlemaiol.com, postmaster@googlemamps.com, postmaster@googlemaops.com, postmaster@googlemapc.com, postmaster@googlemasps.com, postmaster@googlemsil.com, postmaster@googlemsps.com, postmaster@googlermaps.com, postmaster@googltalk.com, postmaster@googlwmail.com, and postmaster@wwwgooglechrome.com.  Also on July 31, 2012, 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 August 23, 2012, 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" 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    All of Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ANDROID and GMAIL marks.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in the proceedings.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its trademark registrations around the world, including those with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502 registered September 14, 2004), and with the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1451705 September 28, 2000).

 

Complainant has rights in the YOUTUBE mark through its trademark registrations around the world, including with the SAIC (e.g., Reg. No. 897,049 registered March 1, 2006).

 

Complainant has rights in the ANDROID mark through its trademark registrations around the world, including with the SAIC (e.g., Reg. No. 6,363,165 registered March 28, 2010).

 

Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark through its trademark registrations around the world, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,451,705 registered October 3, 2006).

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names between May 12, 2010 and December 20, 2011.  Respondent uses the disputed domain names for phishing, pay-per-click advertising, and/or other third party advertising, as discussed below.

 

DISCUSSION

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."

 

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(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.”).

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:  Consolidation/Multiple Respondents/Language of the Proceedings

 

Complainant has requested that the Panel consolidate Claim Number FA1206001449297 with Claim Number FA1207001455178.

 

Policy paragraph 4(f) permits consolidation where the Complainant and Respondent are the same; either party may make the request.

 

In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the entities that control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity operating under several aliases.  Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”  Complainant argues that all of the disputed domain names identify the same city in China and the same two e-mail addresses in the registrant information.  The Panel notes that the Respondent in each case is identified as zhang shuying and/or a variant of that same name, such as zhang shu ying.

                                          

The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus consolidates the two proceedings.  

 

The Panel also notes that the Registration Agreement for Claim Number FA1207001455178 is written in Chinese.  However, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, since Respondent failed to file a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings in Claim Number FA1207001455178 will be conducted in English.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has provided the Panel with evidence of its registrations for its GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ANDROID and GMAIL marks, and has thus established rights in the marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and SIPO] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).  It does not matter that Complainant’s GMAIL mark is not registered in Respondent’s country of China.  See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

 

Each disputed domain name includes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” inconsequential under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), since gTLDs are required of all domain names.  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).

 

Several of Respondent’s disputed domain names also add “www” to one of Complainant’s marks and/or misspell web addresses containing the marks by omitting the period after the “www,” neither of which distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s marks.  See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus the respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark).

 

All of Respondent’s disputed domain names are misspellings of Complainant’s marks combined with generic or descriptive words or letters.  For example, the <googleamps.com> and <googlenaps.com> domain names contain the misspelled term “maps,” descriptive of goods and services offered under Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.  Such changes to a mark have long been held as indistinctive changes in UDRP case precedent.  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). 

 

As another example of insufficient changes made in the disputed domain names, Respondent’s <androia.com> domain name merely replaces the final “d” with an “a.”  See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) 

 

The Panel finds that each of Respondent’s disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s registered marks, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

 

Complainant states that it has never authorized Respondent’s use or registration of the any of the disputed domain names.  The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Shuying Zhang / - / zhang shuying” or “zhang shu ying/ zhangshuying / LinYu / Xiamen eName Technology.”  Thus, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is in fact commonly known by any of the domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names 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).

 

Complainant states that Respondent’s <googelemaps.com>, <googldocs.com>, <googleail.com>, <googleamail.com>, <googleamaps.com>, <googlechrme.com>, <googledocs.net>, <googleimags.com>, <googleimeges.com>, <googleimges.com>, <googlelmaps.com>, <googlemaiol.com>, <googlemamps.com>, <googlemaops.com>, <googlemapc.com>, <googlemasps.com>, <googlemsil.com>, <googlemsps.com>, <googlermaps.com><googlwmail.com>, <wwwgooglechrome.com>, <wwwgoogla.com>, <googai.com>, <googlbe.com>, <googleamps.com>, and <wwwmgoogle.com> domain names redirect Internet users to survey websites that contain pop-up screens informing users that they have won a prize, and seeking personal information from the user in order to collect the prize.  Complainant asserts that Respondent is merely phishing for personal and confidential information from Internet users.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of these domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (holding that, where a disputed domain name purports to offer Internet users a gift card as compensation for filling out surveys, the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. egyGossip.com, FA 1288062 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2009) (finding that Respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests where the disputed domain name was used to solicit the completion of a survey by Internet users).

 

Complainant asserts that the <agogle.com>, <googlecharome.com>, <googlecherome.com>, <googleshrome.com>, <googoleearth.com>, <wwwgoogloe.com>, <gooygle.com>, <googlenaps.com>, <androia.com>, <uyutube.com>, <yytube.com>, <googleboooks.com>, <googleka.com>, and <googlelaps.com> domain names redirect users to parked pages featuring sponsored “pay-per-click” advertising links.  Complainant alleges that Respondent uses these sites to generate revenue from misdirected users who are seeking Complainant’s services but arrive at Respondent’s websites instead.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of these confusingly similar domain names to redirect Internet users to sites displaying links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.  See 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 asserts that the <webgmail.com>, <wwwyoutuobe.com> and <googltalk.com> domain names redirect users to third-party commercial websites, which presumably generate revenue for Respondent similar to the pay-per-click websites discussed above.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the <webgmail.com>, <wwwyoutuobe.com> and <googltalk.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to third-party commercial websites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Vanderbilt Univ. v. U Inc., FA 893000 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (holding that the respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name where it was redirecting Internet users to its own website promoting the respondent’s books unrelated to the complainant).

 

Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant provides evidence that, in addition to the 43 domain names in this dispute, Respondent also owns many additional domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of other well-known brand owners.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the 43 disputed domain names featuring Complainant’s marks, as well as Respondent’s other infringing domain names, is evidence of a bad faith pattern of registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>, <epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).

 

As discussed above, Respondent uses the domain names for fraudulently collecting personal information or “phishing,” “pay-per-click” advertising, and/or to redirect Internet users to third-party commercial websites.  The Panel finds that Respondent use of the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to the resolving websites for commercial gain by confusing Internet users about the affiliation of the websites is bad faith registration and use under 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 Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (“The domain name <billing-juno.com> was registered and used in bad faith by using the name for fraudulent purposes.”); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (holding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates).

 

Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ANDROID, and GMAIL marks, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names, further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <agogle.com>, <androia.com>, <googai.com>, <googlbe.com>, <googleamps.com>, <googlecharome.com>, <googlecherome.com>, <googlenaps.com>, <googleshrome.com>, <googoleearth.com>, <gooygle.com>, <uyutube.com>, <webgmail.com>, <wwwgoogla.com>, <wwwgoogloe.com>, <wwwmgoogle.com>, <wwwyoutuobe.com>, <yytube.com>, <googelemaps.com>, <googleail.com>,  <googleamaps.com>, <googleboooks.com>, <googledocs.net><googleimeges.com>, <googleka.com>, <googlelmaps.com>, <googlemaiol.com>, <googlemamps.com>, <googlemaops.com>, <googlemapc.com>, <googlemasps.com>, <googlemsil.com>, <googlemsps.com>, <googlermaps.com>, <googlwmail.com>, <wwwgooglechrome.com>, <googldocs.com>, <googleamail.com>, <googlechrme.com>, <googleimags.com>, <googleimges.com>, <googlelaps.com>, and <googltalk.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  August 30, 2012

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page