Google LLC v. Ahmad Alqasimi

Claim Number: FA2004001893362



Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Focarino, Brendan J. Hughes of Cooley LLP, Washington DC, USA.  Respondent is Ahmad Alqasimi (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Google 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.


Jonathan Agmon as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 23, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 23, 2020.


On April 23, 2020, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <GOOGLECLASSROOM.APP> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 2020 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  Also on May 18, 2020, 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 April 29, 2020.


On May 14, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Jonathan Agmon 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 argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in its entirety and the Respondent’s addition of the term “classroom” and generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.app” do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.


Complainant also argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.


Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent had full knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks and that the disputed domain names were registered to confuse Internet users whilst benefitting from Complainant’s goodwill and reputation during the COVID-19 pandemic.


B. Respondent

Respondent submitted a Response to Complainant’s contentions.


The Respondent stated that he had not acted in bad faith to take advantage of the pandemic and is agreeable to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.



The Panel finds as follows:



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."


The Panel notes that the Respondent had responded to the Complainant by way of email in which he has consented to the transfer of the <> domain name. As the Complainant is seeking for the transfer of the domain name and the Respondent is agreeable to transfer the domain name to the Complainant, the requests of both parties in this proceeding are identical. Past Panels have considered that the traditional UDRP analysis do not have to be considered and the domain name can be transferred where a respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003); Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005)).


In the particular circumstances of this case, the Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer of the <> domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements.



For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <> be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to Complainant.



Jonathan Agmon, Panelist

Dated:  May 19, 2020





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page