Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1502001605239
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Denis V. Shamo of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <google-status.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.
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 February 17, 2015; the Forum received payment on February 17, 2015.
On February 18, 2015, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <google-status.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs 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 February 19, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@google-status.com. Also on February 19, 2015, 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 March 19, 2015, 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 owns the GOOGLE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered September 14, 2004). Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in connection with its Internet-related products and services, including Internet search and online advertising services.
The <google-status.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. The domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in full, inserts a hyphen, adds a generic word “status,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.com” to the disputed domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <google-status.com> domain name, as evidenced by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects users to a third-party website that advertises the sale of pharmaceuticals.
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <google-status.com> domain name. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting Internet customers seeking Complainant’s website. Further, Respondent intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Given the fame of the GOOGLE mark, Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promote the illegal sale of pharmaceuticals. Finally, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name attempts to carry out malicious attacks on third-party websites.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE 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 trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its GOOGLE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a rotating array of websites which are used, inter alia, to illegally market pharmaceuticals and abet the placement of malicious software.
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.”).
Under Policy 4¶(a)(i),the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registrations for the GOOGLE trademark demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Complainant’s rights exist notwithstanding that Respondent may operate outside the jurisdiction of the trademark’s registrar. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also, 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).
In forming the at-issue domain name Respondent’s adds a hyphen followed by the generic word “status” to Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark then appends the top-level domain name “.com” to the resulting string. The addition of a punctuation mark, such as a hyphen, the addition of a generic word or term, and the appending of a necessary top-level domain name nevertheless leave the Respondent’s domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark. See Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also 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, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
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 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists “Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <google‑status.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s <google‑status.com> domain name redirects users to a third-party websites that advertise the sale of pharmaceuticals. The domain name addresses various pharmaceutical websites, including “Pills 4 U” and “E Life Med Mart.” Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to redirect Internet users to third-party websites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Notably, the drugs promoted and advertised on the <google‑status.com> addressed websites are unregulated, untested, and likely counterfeit. Clearly, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name for such purposes is 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 Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also, Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006) (concluding that the respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement 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))..
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, 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.
First, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name delays or impedes Complainant’s customers and potential customers from reaching Complainant’s products and services and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete with the complainant’s business).
Second, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood that Internet users will confuse Respondent’s domain name with Complainant’s trademark. Thereby, Respondent unfairly capitalizes on the goodwill established in Complainant’s mark, exploits the consumer confusion that it ultimately created and thus demonstrates its own 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).
Third, Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant’s trademark and thereby tarnish the GOOGLE mark also suggests Respondent’s bad faith. See Minn. State Lottery v. Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2001) (finding bad faith because it would be illegal for the respondent to use the domain name <mnlottery.com> without government approval).
Fourth, Respondent’s use of the domain name to carry out cyber-attacks designed to inject malicious content into third party websites further evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1357512 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 17, 2010) (finding that a domain name attracting Internet users to a resolving website that attempts to download malicious software onto their computers to steal personal information “indicates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”).
Finally, Respondent registered the <google‑status.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the GOOGLE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the wide notoriety of Complainant’s trademark. See Google Inc. v. Publica, FA1294447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2010)
(“the fame and unique qualities of the GOOGLE Mark make it extremely unlikely that the Registrant created the Domain Name independently”). Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name precisely 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 <google‑status.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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 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 <google-status.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 22, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page