Google LLC v. Ankita Poonia
Claim Number: FA1711001757741
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Washington DC, USA. Respondent is Ankita Poonia (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tezappdownload.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 8, 2017; the Forum received payment on November 8, 2017.
On November 9, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tezappdownload.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 November 9, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 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@tezappdownload.com. Also on November 9, 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 December 4, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <tezappdownload.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEZ mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tezappdownload.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <<tezappdownload.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Well-known Complainant Google holds common law rights in its TEZ mark, used for an app that has been downloaded more than 5 million times since its launch on September 13, 2017.
Respondent registered the <tezappdownload.com> domain name on September 14, 2017, and uses it to pass itself off as Complainant and to compete with Complainant.
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.”).
Complainant claims it holds common law rights in the TEZ mark and has various pending applications for registration of the mark, but does not currently hold a trademark registration. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to own a trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that “The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”). To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant generally must prove that the mark has generated a secondary meaning. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”). Complainant claims it has common law rights in the TEZ mark since at least as early as September 13, 2017, and shows that the mark has garnered significant press and media coverage. The TEZ app has been downloaded more than 5 million times and consumers have come to identify the TEZ word mark and logo with the Google brand. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to establish common law rights in the TEZ mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <tezappdownload.com> domain name contains the TEZ mark along with the descriptive terms “app” and “download,” and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <tezappdownload.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEZ mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (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 (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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <tezappdownload.com> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. 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 WHOIS identifies “Ankita Poonia” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not legitimately affiliated with Complainant, and has no permission to use the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent is commonly known by the TEZ mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <tezappdownload.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as it attempts to pass off as Complainant to commercially benefit from competing hyperlinks. Complainant provides screenshots of the links displayed on the website resolving from the disputed domain name, which looks similar to Complainant’s website. The links displayed there include “Install Play Store” and “Free Download App for PC.” The Panel finds that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain, failing to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”); see also Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum August 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent uses the <tezappdownload.com> domain name to engage in a phishing scheme to obtain information from users. Phishing schemes can evince a failure to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum March 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Complainant alleges that Respondent passes off as Complainant and solicits unsuspecting Internet users to make payments to an account under the name, “Bhaskar Ram.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s phishing scheme is further evidence that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <tezappdownload.com> domain name in bad faith by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, to commercially benefit by offering competing goods or services. The Panel finds that Complainant’s screenshots demonstrate that Respondent attempts to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained).
Complainant argues that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme to obtain fraudulent payments from unsuspecting users. The Panel finds that evidence of Respondent’s phishing scheme deonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant provides evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name within hours of media outlets reporting news of Complainant’s anticipated launch of the TEZ media application, indicative of opportunistic bad faith. The Panel finds that this is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Arizona Board of Regents, for and on behalf of Arizona State University v. Weiping Zheng, FA1504001613780 (Forum May 28, 2015) (finding that the respondent had acted in opportunistic bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when it registered the disputed domain name just one week after the complainant filed applications to register the SUB DEVIL LIFE mark, and just days after those applications became public through the USPTO’s website).
Complainant contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the TEZ mark when it registered the domain name as evidenced by the incorporation of Complainant’s mark in its entirety in the domain name, and the prominent use of Complainant’s branding on Respondent’s website. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). See Compl. Annex 14. The Panel may agree with Complainant and find that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tezappdownload.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 5, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page