Google Inc. v. No company / Web Maister
Claim Number: FA1207001454415
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is No company / Web Maister (“Respondent”), Argentina.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlepartnersmexico.com>, registered with Neubox Internet S.A. de C.V.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 20, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 23, 2012. Complainant also submitted a Spanish Language Complainant on July 29, 2012.
On July 20, 2012, Neubox Internet S.A. de C.V. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name is registered with Neubox Internet S.A. de C.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Neubox Internet S.A. de C.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Neubox Internet S.A. de C.V. 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 30, 2012, the Forum served the Spanish language Complaint and all Annexes, including an English language and Spanish 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@googlepartnersmexico.com. Also on July 30, 2012, the Spanish 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 Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
A. Google and the GOOGLE Mark
Google is a Delaware corporation located in Mountain View, California.
The GOOGLE name was created in 1997 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, the GOOGLE search engine has become one of the largest, most highly recognized, and widely used Internet search services in the world. Google’s primary website is located at http://google.com, and Google owns and operates hundreds of additional GOOGLE- formative domain names, including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the GOOGLE Mark.
The GOOGLE search engine maintains one of the world’s largest collections of searchable documents. The GOOGLE search engine provides an easy-to-use interface, advanced search technology, and a comprehensive array of search tools, and allows Internet users to search for and find a wide variety of content in many different languages.
The GOOGLE Mark was found to be one of the top ten Best Global Brands in each of the last three years. Additionally, Google’s website has been recognized as one of the most popular destinations on the Internet for many years, well before the registration of the Domain Name. comScore, among others, ranked Google’s websites as among the most visited group of websites as early as 2004.
Google has consistently been honored for its technology and its services, and has received numerous industry awards.
Google also offers co-branded web search solutions and has hundreds of thousands of publishers in its content network.
In addition to being accessible from desktop PCs, Google’s adaptable, highly scalable search technology can also be accessed from most mobile and wireless platforms.
Google also offers a wide range of products and services beyond search. A full list of available products and services can be found at http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/.
The GOOGLE Mark identifies Google’s award-winning, proprietary, and unique search services, search engine technology, and associated products and services. The GOOGLE Mark has been widely promoted among members of the general consuming public since 1997, and has exclusively identified Google. As a result, the GOOGLE Mark and name symbolize the substantial goodwill associated with Google and are of immense value. Due to widespread and substantial international use, the GOOGLE Mark and name have become famous.
Google owns numerous United States, Mexican, and other foreign registrations for the GOOGLE Mark dating back to as early as 1999. Each registration remains valid and in full force and effect.
Google offers Partner Programs, whereby individuals or companies can demonstrate expertise and experience with respect to a number of Google products, including Google AdWords, Google Analytics and Google Website Optimizer. A list of available partner programs can be found at http://www.google.com/intl/en/adwords/partnerprograms/index.html.
As part of its AdWords Partners Program, Google offers an AdWords Certification Program for individuals and companies. This Certification Program is a globally recognized stamp of approval which showcases knowledge of the latest AdWords tools and best practice techniques. Individuals or entities that join and complete the Certification Program are entitled to display a badge that identifies them as a Google AdWords Certified Partner and provides a link to a Google Partner Search webpage that confirms the certification and provides basic details and information regarding the Google AdWords Certified Partner. Example webpages featuring the Google AdWords Certified Partner badge and the corresponding Google Partner Search webpage confirmation of certification can be found at http://www.prodtomark.com/ and https://adwords.google.com/professionals/profile/org?id=09666002456083477965&hl=en, respectively.
B. Respondent and the Domain Name
According to the WHOIS database, Respondent is an entity located in San Juan, Argentina.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on February 8, 2012.
The Domain Name resolves to a webpage that mimics the overall look and feel of a Google Google Partner Search webpage. This webpage purports to confirm the certification of “Publicidad en Buscadores” as a Google AdWords Certified Partner and features the famous Google logo, a 2012 Google copyright notice and a nearly exact replica of the Google AdWords Certified Partner badge, as illustrated in a side-by-side comparison:
[images removed]
Google AdWords Certified Partner Badge Respondent’s Infringing Badge
The text of the webpage is in both Spanish and English, and falsely states that the entity “Publicidad en Buscadores” (meaning “Search Engine Advertising” in English) “has met Google’s requirements to attain recognition as a Google AdWords Certified Partner.” The Domain Name contains a link to the Publicaidad en Buscadores website, http://www.publicidadenbuscadores.mx, which displays both the famous Google logo, as well as an infringing copy of the Google AdWords Certified Partner badge that falsely indicates that Publicaidad en Buscadores is a Google AdWords Certified Partner.
By using the Domain Name in this manner, Respondent is capitalizing on the near identity between the Domain Name and the famous GOOGLE Mark to generate revenue from consumers who are seeking Google’s services, including verification of its Certified Partners, and arrive at Respondent’s website by mistake. As discussed in further detail below, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in this manner demonstrates its bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name, as well as its lack of any legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name, and supports a finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous GOOGLE Mark.
LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following legal grounds.
A. Likelihood of Confusion—ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Google has used the GOOGLE Mark continuously since well prior to February 8, 2012, the registration date for the Domain Name. Indeed, Google owns U.S. and Mexican registrations that issued well prior to that date. Each remains valid and in full force. Thus, Complainant owns rights in the GOOGLE Mark that predate the registration date of the Domain Name. See, e.g., Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Parisa Tabriz, FA921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 12, 2007); FDNY Fire Safety Education Fund, Inc. v. Roger Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 26, 2003) (“[T]he FDNY’s successful registration of its mark on the Principal Register is evidence of its rights in the mark.”); Google Inc. v. Smith Smithers, FA0610000826563 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (“Although [r]espondent’s registration of the [disputed domain names] predate [sic] Complainant’s USPTO registration, Complainant’s filing date of September 16, 1998 predates [r]espondent’s registration [which] sufficiently establishes rights in the GOOGLE Mark.”).
A domain name is “nearly identical or confusingly similar” to a complainant’s mark when it “fully incorporate[s] said mark.” PepsiCo. Inc. v. PEPSI SRL, D2003-0696 (WIPO Oct. 28, 2003) (holding pepsiadventure.net, pepsitennis.com, and others confusingly similar to the Domain Name incorporates the famous GOOGLE Mark in its entirety, and is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE Mark.
A domain name registrant may not avoid likely confusion by simply adding a descriptive or non-distinctive term to another’s mark. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Kun Zhang, FA0901001245131 (Nat’l Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2009) (holding the “addition of generic terms to a famous mark is insufficient to diminish the confusingly similar nature” of the domain name googlevideodownload.com); Google Inc. v. Babaian, FA0708001060992 (Nat’l Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2007) (finding that where the registrant merely added of “generic words [like] ‘web,’ ‘data,’ ‘drive,’ and ‘storage’ that have an obvious relationship to [Google’s] business,” the domain names are confusingly similar under Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
In this instance, the Domain Name merely adds the descriptive and non-distinctive terms “partners” and “Mexico” after the GOOGLE Mark. The Domain Name appears to be intended to capitalize on users seeking to access information regarding Google’s Partner Programs and its worldwide network of Certified Partners. Moreover, the use of the words “partners” and “Mexico” with the GOOGLE Mark “confirms the confusing similarity of the [D]omain [N]ame to Complainant’s rights,” because “partners” and “Mexico” describe the Partners Programs offered by Google under the Google Mark to companies and individuals in countries throughout the world, including Mexico. See Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Dmitry, D2000- 0530 (WIPO Aug. 10, 2000) (“The inclusion of the word ‘chip’ with the ATHLON mark in the domain name confirms the confusing similarity of the domain name to Complainant’s rights, because ‘chip’ describes the products offered by Complainant under the ATHLON mark.”).
Regardless of the reason for its inclusion in the Domain Name, the fame of the distinctive GOOGLE mark and the non-distinctiveness of the added terms will cause users encountering the Domain Name to mistakenly believe the Domain Name originates from, is associated with, or is sponsored by Google.
In light of the foregoing, the Domain Name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the GOOGLE Mark.
B. No Rights or Legitimate Interests—ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
As Panels have noted in evaluating infringing GOOGLE-formative domains, any “[r]espondent would be hard pressed to show that it had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because Complainant’s [GOOGLE] mark is so well known.” Google Inc. v. Mikel M Frieje, FA011000102609 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register or use the Domain Name.
On information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name or any name containing Complainant’s GOOGLE Mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information in connection with the Domain Name makes no mention of the Domain Name or the Mark as Respondent’s name or nickname. A registrant may be found to lack any right or legitimate interest in a domain name where there is no indication it is known by that name. See Popular Enterprises, LLC v. Sung-a Jang, FA0610000811921 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 16, 2006) (“Respondent’s WHOIS information does not suggest that [r]espondent is commonly known by the <ntester.com> domain name”).
Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way. Unlicensed, unauthorized use of domains incorporating a complainant’s trademark is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Time Warner Inc. v. MLM Capital LLC d/b/a Domains, FA0709001076561 (Oct. 26, 2007).
Neither can Respondent claim that it is offering bona fide goods or services by redirecting visitors to a website that is intended to copy the overall look and feel of a Google Partner Search webpage, and uses the famous Google Logo and a nearly exact replica of the Google AdWords Certified Partner badge to deceive users into mistakenly believing that Publicidad en Buscadores is a Google AdWords Certified Partner. See Wachovia Corp. v. Carrington, WIPO Case No. D20020775 (October 2, 2002) (“Although Respondent has provided users with access to . . . purported surveys about users’ online experiences, these services are not ‘bona fide’ because Respondent is using the domain name[] in bad faith for the purpose of diverting users to his own site through confusion.”); accord AltaVista Co. v. Yomtobian, WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (October 13, 2000).
Respondent likely derives substantial profits by insinuating that it is a Google AdWords Certified Partner and that it has the knowledge and skills of a legitimate Google AdWords Certified Partner. As such, Respondent is improperly capitalizing on the Google brand, which does not amount to legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Thus, Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
C. Bad Faith—ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The fame and unique qualities of the GOOGLE Mark, which was adopted and registered by Complainant years prior to the registration of the Domain Name, make it extremely unlikely that Respondent created the Domain Name independently. See, e.g., The J. Jill Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a RaveClub Berlin, FA0205000112627 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2002) (“Because of the famous and distinct nature of Complainant’s mark and Complainant’s J. JILL listing on the Principal Register of the USPTO, [r]espondent is thought to have been on notice as to the existence of Complainant’s mark at the time [r]espondent registered the infringing <jjilll.com> domain name. Thus, [r]espondent’s registration despite this notice is evidence of bad faith registration”).
The Domain Name redirect to a page that mirrors the overall look and feel of a Google Partner Search webpage (including the use of the Google logo and a nearly exact replica of the Google AdWords Certified Partner badge) and deceives consumers into believing that the associated website is sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Google when that is not in fact the case. See Embarq Management Company v. BizZoo Biz c/o Biz BizZoo.Biz, FA0706001010322 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 30, 2007) (redirecting users to a “website which imitates Complainant’s website and uses Complainant’s mark prominently on the websites in order to obtain personal information” confuses consumers “as to the source, affiliation, endorsement and sponsorship of the disputed domain names” and therefore is evidence of bad faith); America Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and of the Policy.”).
Given Respondent’s registration of a domain name that contains the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety, along with additional non-distinctive words, it is impossible to conceive of any potential legitimate use of the Domain Name. As such, the Domain Name is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., Ferrari S.p.A. v. Joohee, D2003-0882 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2003) (“Respondent has appropriated a trademark having a strong reputation and widely known. The Panel finds it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's trademark . . . Respondent has provided no evidence or suggestion of a possible legitimate use . . . . Thus, in the words of Telstra, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, or an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.”); Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. Okon, D2004-0245 (WIPO May 31, 2004) (finding that registrant’s “passive use” amounted to bad faith use due to the fame of the complainant’s mark and lack of evidence of any good faith); Gaggia S.p.A. v. Kliang, D2003-0982 (WIPO Feb. 8, 2004) (finding bad faith use where the domain name included complainant’s well known trademark, the domain name was inactive for a period of four years, and the registrant failed to respond to complainant’s efforts to resolve the dispute amicably); Staples, Inc. v. Conrad, D2003-0713 (WIPO Oct. 27, 2003).
Where a domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products,” “its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith.” Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas, D2000-0226 (WIPO May 17, 2000). Indeed, Respondent “could not have chosen or subsequently used . . . its domain names for any reason other than to trade on that name and to confuse Internet users and by that means to attract them to a website with a name which is the same as that of the prominent mark. That is, in itself, evidence of bad faith.” Control Techniques Ltd. v. Lektronix Ltd., D2006-1052 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2006).
Moreover, Respondent has failed to list a legitimate mailing address in the WHOIS record for the Domain Name, in violation of section 3.7.7.2 of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Respondent’s intentional concealment of its identity further establishes that its registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith. See Yahoo!, Inc. v. Eitan Zviely D2000-0273 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that “[Respondent’s] registration under phony names” constitutes bad faith registration and use); Salomon Smith Barney Inc. v. Salomon Internet Services, D2000-0668 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2000) (finding bad faith use and registration where Respondent had “taken steps to conceal its true identity”).
Based on the foregoing, Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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.”).
Complainant registered the GOOGLE mark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,896,075 registered January 20, 2004) and Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“MIIP”) (e.g., Reg. No. 622,721 registered January 17, 2000). Complainant submitted a listing of its trademark registrations, which includes both USPTO and MIIP registrations for the GOOGLE mark. Thus, the Panel concludes Complainant has adequately established its rights in the GOOGLE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). 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).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. The disputed domain name includes the entire mark, while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” the generic term “partners,” and the geographic identifier “Mexico”-all of which relate to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark pursuant Policy ¶4(a)(i) because Respondent failed to sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also Laboratoires De Biologie Vegetale Yves Rocher v. Choi, FA 104201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 22, 2002) (holding that the <yveskorea.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s YVES ROCHER mark even though the domain name was only similar in part).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 claims Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “No company / Web Maister.” Respondent did not provide any evidence it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name 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).
Complainant claims Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant claims Respondent copies the “look and feel” of a GOOGLE Partner Search webpage by using the GOOGLE logo and a replica of the GOOGLE AdWords Certified Partner badge on the resolving website. Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving website, which states the website is affiliated with Complainant. The Panel concludes Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and Policy ¶4(c)(iii), respectively. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant argues Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent resolves the <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name to a website offering a GOOGLE Partner Search webpage, including the use of the Google logo and a nearly exact replica of the GOOGLE AdWords Certified Partner badge, which deceives consumers into believing the associated website is sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent also uses the disputed domain name in such a manner as to confuse Internet users into patronizing Respondent’s website. Complainant claims Respondent derives substantial profits by claiming Respondent is a GOOGLE AdWords Certified Partner. This means Respondent is improperly capitalizing on the GOOGLE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <googlepartnersmexico.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Thursday, August 23, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page