Google LLC v. Abdul Waheed
Claim Number: FA1905001842600
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, California, USA. Respondent is Abdul Waheed (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <adsensesale.info>, registered with 1&1 IONOS SE.
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.
Aaron B. Newell as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 10, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 10, 2019.
On May 10, 2019, 1&1 IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <adsensesale.info> domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 IONOS SE 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 May 17, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 6, 2019 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@adsensesale.info. Also on May 17, 2019, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 19, 2019.
On May 22, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Aaron B. Newell 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADSENSE trademark that is famous and registered in numerous countries. Complainant has used the ADSENSE name internationally since 2003 for an online ad placement service that has been used by millions of publishers and advertisers since this time.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent has at all material times been aware of its ADSENSE trademark, that Respondent is not authorized to use the ADSENSE mark, that it is not associated or affiliated with Complainant in any way, that it is not commonly known by the name ADSENSE and had not been known by this name at any time prior to its registration of the domain name, which occurred more than ten years after Complainant’s use and registration of its ADSENSE trademark.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent has for some time used the domain name to resolve to a website that promoted a business where the Respondent offered AdSense, AdMob and YouTube accounts (all services of the Complainant) for sale alongside the offering of related marketing consultancy services. Complainant asserts that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services and that this conduct in fact violates its Terms and Conditions for use of AdSense accounts.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s use of the AdSense name, that Respondent is using Complainant’s name for profit and for services that compete with Complainant’s, that Respondent is misappropriating the goodwill in the ADSENSE name, that Respondent is confusing consumers, that it is impossible to conceive of any use of the domain name that could not be in bad faith, and that the inability of the parties to settle the dispute despite Complainant’s approaches to Respondent is indicative of Respondent’s bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent asserts that he is a student and that academic pressures prevented him from engaging with the Complainant in a timely fashion prior to the proceedings being filed. Respondent states that he prefers not to formally respond to any of the Complainant’s assertions and instead consents to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
For the reasons set out below, the Panel does not assess the Complainant’s assertions under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
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 the present case, the Respondent has unequivocally communicated to the Complainant and the Forum that it consents to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. This of course is the remedy requested by the Complainant, and the Panel is aware of no indications from the Complainant that it does or would decline Respondent’s consent in favor of a recorded decision on the merits.
While the Panel acknowledges that certain circumstances may warrant a substantive decision on the record despite both parties expressly agreeing as to how the proceeding should be resolved, in this case the Panel sees no reason not to give both parties what they want and simply to order that the domain name be transferred. Here the Panel notes that “[A] genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements” (see The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132) and “[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names” (See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005).
No assessment necessary given the parties’ agreement that the domain name should be transferred.
No assessment necessary given the parties’ agreement that the domain name should be transferred.
No assessment necessary given the parties’ agreement that the domain name should be transferred.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <adsensesale.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Aaron B. Newell, Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page