DECISION

 

Google LLC v. juan benjabra / A2b cars

Claim Number: FA1907001852297

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew J. Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Michigan, USA.  Respondent is juan benjabra / A2b cars (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <googlebooking.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc..

 

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.

 

            Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 16, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 16, 2019.

 

On July 17, 2019, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlebooking.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 July 18, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 7, 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@googlebooking.com.  Also on July 18, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 8, 2019, a timely and appropriately submitted Additional Submission was received by the Forum.

 

On August 12, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 offers a wide range of Internet-related products and services, including online advertising services, travel search and booking services, Internet search services, cloud services, web hosting services, web analytics, a social networking platform, translation services, mapping services, Internet browser software, web monetization services, and guidance concerning search engine optimization. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered Sep. 14, 2004). See Compl. Annex 10. Respondent’s <googlebooking.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. Respondent has entirely incorporated Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and merely added the descriptive term “booking” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <googlebooking.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses a the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its own website which offers competing goods and services to Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and used the <googlebooking.com> domain name in bad faith by attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its GOOGLE mark. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent attempts to offer goods and services that compete with Complainant’s business. Lastly, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 21, 2015.

 

C. Complainant’s Additional Submissions

On August 8, 2019, Complainant filed an Additional Submission emphasizing and providing evidence that Respondent was attempting to sell the disputed domain name.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <googlebooking.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, GOOGLE.  Complainant has adequately demonstrated its rights and interests in the GOOGLE trademark.  Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the word “booking” to Complainant’s precise trademark and the g TLD “.com.”  This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.

 

As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.  Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name.  Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Also, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its own website which offers competing goods and services to Complainant.

 

As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.  Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its famous GOOGLE mark. The display of a complainant’s mark on the resolving webpage of a disputed domain name, thus creating confusion as to affiliation or association with a complainant may be evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (FORUM Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Here, Complainant has provided a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that prominently shows Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. See Compl. Annex 11. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in attempts to pass off as Complainant. Attempts to pass off as a Complainant by offering competing services may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (FORUM May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name that offers booking services which Complainant argues compete with Complainant’s services. See Compl. Annex 11. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Lastly, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights and interests in the mark GOOGLE.  Given the fame of Complainant’s trademark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights and interests in and to the famous trademark GOOGLE.

 

As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

Kenneth L. Port, Panelist

Dated:  August 22, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page