Google LLC v. Raj Shekhar
Claim Number: FA1803001779541
Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, California, USA. Respondent is Raj Shekhar ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <google-flights.org>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 29, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 29, 2018.
On March 30, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <google-flights.org> 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 April 2, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@google-flights.org. Also on April 2, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 27, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 was founded in 1997. Complainant operates the widely used GOOGLE search engine and offers a wide range of Internet-related products and services, including Internet search and online advertising services. Complainant's GOOGLE mark has been consistently ranked among the world's most valuable global brands. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the GOOGLE mark dating back to 1998 in jurisdictions throughout the world, including the United States and India.
In 2011 Complainant launched an online flight booking service under the name and mark GOOGLE FLIGHTS. Complainant states that this service has attracted significant unsolicited media coverage, and that as a result consumers have come to identify the GOOGLE FLIGHTS mark with Complainant's brand, giving Complainant enforceable rights in the GOOGLE FLIGHTS mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <google-flights.org> in July 2017. It is being used for a website that prominently displays Complainant's GOOGLE and GOOGLE FLIGHTS marks and associated logos, along with images taken from Complainant's Google Flights website. Respondent's website also contains numerous pay-per-click advertising links. Complainant states that Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use its marks, and asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <google-flights.org> is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.").
The disputed domain name <google-flights.org> corresponds to Complainant's registered GOOGLE trademark, with a hyphen, the generic term "flights," and the ".org" top-level domain appended thereto. These additions are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Jaya Patta, FA 1778649 (Forum Apr. 21, 2018) (finding <google-flights.co> and <flightsgoogle.org> confusingly similar to GOOGLE); Google LLC v. Alick Mouri, FA 1776419 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding <google-gifts.com> confusingly similar to GOOGLE). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's well-known registered mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been for a website designed to attract users seeking Complainant and then profit when they click on advertising links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Smith Smithers, FA 826563 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in use of domain names incorporating GOOGLE mark for websites containing links to competing and noncompeting sites); see also Google LLC v. Jaya Patta, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in use of domain names incorporating GOOGLE mark and "flights" for websites offering flight services unconnected with Google).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization, and is using it for a website that uses Complainant's marks and logos to create a false impression that the site is associated with Complainant. The site presumably benefits Respondent commercially by attracting traffic and clicks for its advertising links. Respondent's actions are indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Jaya Patta, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <google-flights.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 27, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page