Google LLC v. Jaya Patta
Claim Number: FA1803001778649
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jaya Patta (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <google-flights.co>, <flightsgoogle.org>, and <google-flight.co>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 23, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 23, 2018.
On March 26, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <google-flights.co>, <flightsgoogle.org>, and <google-flight.co> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 March 27, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 16, 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@google-flights.co, postmaster@flightsgoogle.org, postmaster@google-flight.co. Also on March 27, 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 April 20, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia, in the USA for its Internet search services. In 2011 Complainant launched an on line flight booking search facility under the trade mark GOOGLE FLIGHTS and using the Google Flights Logo
The Domain Names registered in 2017 or 2018 point to sites which mimic the look and feel of Complainant’s GOOGLE FLIGHTS web site and use Complainant’s name and logos.
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety and are therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of the ‘flight’ or ‘flights’ and hyphens in the Domain Names will not prevent that confusion. A top level domain like ‘.co’ and ‘.org’ is required for domain name registration and is irrelevant for the confusing similarity test under the Policy.
Complainant has not authorised Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or GOOGLE. It is not bona fide use to direct Internet users to commercial sites not affiliated with Complainant. Where a domain name is so obviously connected to a well known name it is opportunistic bad faith to use this for business gain and an inconspicuous disclaimer does not alleviate the misleading nature of Respondent’s use which is passing off and is creating a likelihood of confusion for profit and contrary to Policy 4 (b)(iv). The multiple registrations using GOOGLE form a pattern of competing conduct. Respondent also failed to answer a cease and desist from Complainant also indicating bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia, in the USA at least as early as 2000 for its Internet search services.
The Domain Name has been pointed to commercial sites not connected with Complainant using Complainant’s name and logos.
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 or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names consists of the Complainant’s GOOGLE mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA since at least 2000 for Internet searching services) the generic words ‘flight’ or ‘flights’ and/or a hyphen and the gTLD.com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic word ‘flight’ or ‘flights’ or the addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy especially as Complainant offers a service under GOOGLEFLIGHTS offering search services relation to flights.
The TLDs .co or .org do not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the GOOGLE mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names. Complainant contends that the site is set up for commercial benefit to compete with Complainant using the latter's intellectual property rights.
Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Names to offer flight search services not connected with Complainant but using Complainant’s name and logos. He does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant also alleges that Respondent's use of the sites attached to the Domain Names is commercial and he is using it to make profit in a confusing and disruptive manner. In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Names in relation to Respondent’s sites is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships not connected with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those third party businesses and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, the Panelist believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paras 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(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 <google-flights.co>, <flightsgoogle.org>, and <google-flight.co> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page