URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Google LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2001001881156


DOMAIN NAME

<androidg.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Google LLC of Mountain View, CA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Cooley LLP Brendan J Hughes of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. / WhoisGuard Protected WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, II, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

EXAMINER


   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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: January 30, 2020
   Commencement: February 18, 2020
   Default Date: March 4, 2020
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark ANDROID.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks; and Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that mimics the look and feel of Complainant�s own website to deceive and harm unsuspecting Internet users. Examiner finds that such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. Examiner also finds that there is no record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner concludes in the absence of Response that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant'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 Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that Respondent�s willful, bad faith intent to violate Complainant�s intellectual property rights is exhibited by the inclusion of the entirety of the ANDROID mark in the disputed domain name; Respondent has appropriated Complainant's trademark having a strong reputation and widely known; its use of the disputed domain name suggests opportunistic bad faith; and the use of the disputed domain name with a deceptive, copycat website to solicit personal user information under the ruse of providing �Premium Gifts for Everyone� is clear evidence of Respondent�s bad faith, and warrants immediate suspension to mitigate future user harm. Examiner agrees with Complainant that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. androidg.club

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: March 5, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page