Google LLC v. Chen Weilong
Claim Number: FA1810001810319
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Aimee R. Gibbs of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Chen Weilong (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <newchromedownload.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 4, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 4, 2018.
On October 4, 2018, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <newchromedownload.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.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 October 5, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 25, 2018 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@newchromedownload.com. Also on October 5, 2018, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 29, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Google LLC, uses the CHROME mark in connection with its popular internet browser.
Complainant has rights in the CHROME mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <newchromedownload.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent’s incorporates the entire mark in the disputed domain name plus the non-distinctive terms “new” and “download,” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <newchromedownload.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is not authorized by Complainant to use the mark in any fashion. Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent mimics the look and feel of Complainant’s website in an attempt to create a faux association with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent‘s <newchromedownload.com> website offers unwanted or malicious versions of Google Chrome software for download.
Respondent registered and uses the <newchromedownload.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration because Respondent registered five (5) domain names that contain the CHROME mark. Additionally, Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by operating a competing webpage. Furthermore, Respondent attempts to commercially gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark by operating a webpage that offers unwanted or malicious versions of Complainant’s software. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CHROME mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its CHROME trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of distributing unauthorized copies of Complainant’s software and malware.
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(f), 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 (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.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for CHROME demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register …, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <newchromedownload.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CHROME trademark embedded in the descriptive phrase “newchromedownload” all followed by a necessary top level domain name, here “.com”. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <newchromedownload.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHROME trademark. See Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. ming li, FA 1782613 (Forum May 29, 2018) (“Respondent’s <lilashserum.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the LILASH mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “serum” and the “.us” ccTLD to the mark.”); see also, Google Inc v. Chen Weilong, FA1803596 (Forum Sept. 24, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where the <googlechrome2018.net> and <newchromeonline.com> domain names incorporate CHROME in its entirety). .
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Chen Weilong.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <newchromedownload.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. On the <newchromedownload.com> website Respondent imitates the look and feel of Complainant’s website and seeks to deliver malware to website visitors. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <newchromedownload.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances, as well as other circumstance, are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <newchromedownload.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent imitates Complainant’s website design and exploits Complainant’s CHROME mark to confuse internet users seeking Complainant into believing that the <newchromedownload.com> website is associated with Complainant. Respondent’s attempts to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant and demonstrate bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business); see also, Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith).
As also mentioned above, Respondent uses the <newchromedownload.com> domain name and its referenced website to distribute malware posing as Complainant’s CHROME software and/or embedded in software that Respondent bundles with CHROME software available for download from the <newchromedownload.com> website. As part of Respondent’s download procedure the downloading party is required to give up personal information. This use of the at-issue domain name by Respondent additionally indicates Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy. See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere, FA1505001621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users’ devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”);
Furthermore, Respondent has also registered serval other domain names which contain Complainant’s CHROME mark; some the subject of UDRP actions by Complainant which have resulted in findings adverse to Respondent. Respondent’s pattern of past cybersquatting suggests bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“Complainant has provided evidence that Respondent has a history of UDRP and USDRP decisions decided against it. This establishes bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Finally, Respondent registered <newchromedownload.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the CHROME mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant in its effort to distribute unauthorized and/or tainted copies of Complainant’s CHROME software. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <newchromedownload.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <newchromedownload.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page