Google Inc. v. Anna Floersch
Claim Number: FA1412001596059
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, United States of America, USA. Respondent is Anna Floersch (“Respondent”), California.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <my-accounts-google.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 18, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 22, 2014.
On December 22, 2014, Godaddy.Com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 December 29, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 2015 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@my-accounts-google.com. Also on December 29, 2014, 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.
On January 21, 2015 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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
1. Complainant uses GOOGLE to promote its vast online information, news, and media business. The GOOGLE mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075 registered Jan. 20, 2004). The <my-accounts-google.com> domain name takes the GOOGLE mark and then adds on the hyphenated phrase “-my-accounts,” suggesting access to GOOGLE online accounts.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this domain name. First, Respondent has never been commonly known by this Internet domain name. Further, Respondent uses the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name to host e-mail accounts wherein individuals impersonate GOOGLE employees. The website of the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name itself does little more than host parking-content such as related advertising.
3. Respondent registered and is using the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is capitalizing on a likelihood of Internet users confusion as to the association between the e-mail accounts operated under the domain name and Complainant’s own account representatives. Respondent’s use of e-mail accounts, purporting to be associated with Complainant, suggest an intent to phish for information through the domain name in bad faith. Further, Respondent likely had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when registering and using this domain name.
B. Respondent
1. Respondent did not file a formal response. Through correspondence Respondent claims that she is not the person who registered these domain names, and that she cannot access these domain names. Respondent contends that she is a college student who has no knowledge of domain name registration systems and is having other issues dealing with online accounts that seem to be compromised. Respondent asserts that she is unaware of the nature of phishing scams and that Complainant should be allowed transfer of the disputed domains to end this proceeding so that Respondent’s name cannot be further tarnished.
Complainant is Google, Inc. of Mountain View, CA, USA. The GOOGLE name was created in 1997 in association with Internet services and since that time has become renowned as one of the largest, most highly recognized, and widely used Internet services in the world. Complainant owns numerous domestic and foreign registrations for the GOOGLE mark and other related marks dating back to 1999.
Respondent is Anna Floersch of Chino Hills, CA, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. Respondent is a college student who claims to be the victim of some type of fraud or identity theft. Respondent through correspondence indicated that a number of charges to the Registrar of record were billed and paid from her account without her prior knowledge or authorization. The disputed domain name was registered on or about August 27, 2014.
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
Respondent consents to transfer the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name to Complainant. However, Respondent claims her identity is being used by a third-party registrant and thus Respondent lacks the access to the domain name for transfer. The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the 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."
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.”).
See above. Respondent consents to transfer.
See above. Respondent consents to transfer.
See above. Respondent consents to transfer.
Because the Respondent has consented to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <my-accounts-google.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page