DECISION

 

Google Inc. v. Dung Nguyen Dinh

Claim Number: FA1708001743479

PARTIES

Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, United States of America.  Respondent is Dung Nguyen Dinh (“Respondent”), Czech Republic.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <googlecontentmanager.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 7, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 7, 2017.

 

On August 9, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlecontentmanager.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 August 18, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2017 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@googlecontentmanager.com.  Also on August 18, 2017, 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 September 11, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns and operates one of the most highly used Internet search engines in the world. Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in conjunction with its Internet search engine services. Complainant has registered the mark in countries all over the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,140,793, Sept. 12, 2006). Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark because it fully incorporates the mark, adding the generic terms “content” and “manager,” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <googlecontentmanager.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> operates as a phishing scheme to obtain confidential consumer information such as emails and log-in account information.

 

Respondent registered and is using <googlecontentmanager.com> in bad faith. The disputed domain name attempts to attract customers away from Complainant’s business by creating the likelihood of confusion by using the Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s famous GOOGLE mark is opportunistic bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Google Inc., owns and operates one of the most highly used Internet search engines in the world. Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in conjunction with its Internet search engine services. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through registration in countries all over the world, including USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,140,793, Sept. 12, 2006). Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.

 

Respondent, Dung Nguyen Dinh, registered <googlecontentmanager.com> on September 21, 2016.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <googlecontentmanager.com>. Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> operates as a phishing scheme to obtain confidential consumer information such as emails and log-in account information.

 

Respondent registered and is using <googlecontentmanager.com> in bad faith.

 

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(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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through registrations worldwide, including the USPTO. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). 

Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <googlecontentmanager.com>. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Dung Nguyen Dinh.” See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (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 domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

The <googlecontentmanager.com> domain attracts internet users to Respondent’s website, presumably for Respondent’s financial gain. The disputed domain has a fake service called “Google Advertise,” displaying points of input for an email and password. Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> is evidence of a phishing scheme to obtain personal information such as email addresses and log-in information from users seeking to acquire Complainant’s services. Panels have determined that phishing behavior is a violation of the Policy. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in <googlecontentmanager.com> pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent registered and is using <googlecontentmanager.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s <googlecontentmanager.com> resolves to a webpage depicting Complainant’s mark and offer a service called “Google Advertise.” Respondent’s attempts to pass off as Complainant are shown by incorporating the entire GOOGLE mark and offering Internet services similar to Complainant, in a scheme to phish for Internet users’ personal information. Respondent’ conduct shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See generally Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding “bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was using a confusingly similar domain name in a fraudulent phishing scheme to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users.).

 

Respondent had actual knowledge of the famous GOOGLE mark, and, therefore, registered and uses <googlecontentmanager.com> in bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum March 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlecontentmanager.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  September 27, 2017

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page