Google LLC v. fds dfsf
Claim Number: FA2008001910809
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is fds dfsf (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <google-securitys.com>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 31, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 31, 2020.
On September 1, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <google-securitys.com> 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 September 2, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 22, 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 postmaster@google-securitys.com. Also on September 2, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 25, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant runs one of the most recognized and popular internet destinations and offers numerous online related services and products.
Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <google-securitys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive term “securitys” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <google-securitys.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name addresses an inactive webpage that fails to display content.
Respondent registered and used the <google-securitys.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to confuse internet users by using Complainant’s mark in its domain name. Respondent might be using or intending to use the domain name as part of a phishing scheme. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark due to the fame and longstanding use of the mark and otherwise.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in GOOGLE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the GOOGLE trademark.
Respondent holds the <google-securitys.com> domain name passively and browsing to the domain name displays a blank page.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration(s) for GOOGLE shows Complainant’s rights in mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <google-securitys.com> domain name contains Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark followed by a hyphen and the descriptive term “security“ with an “s” added or “securitys” [sic], depending on how one parses the domain name. The domain name concludes with the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <google-securitys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark. See Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. ming li, FA 1782613 (Forum May 29, 2018) (“Respondent’s <lilashserum.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the LILASH mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “serum” and the “.us” ccTLD to the mark.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “fds dfsf” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <google-securitys.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <google-securitys.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the <google-securitys.com> domain name to address a blank page. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to give the false impression that it is affiliated with Complainant, when it is not. Respondent’s use of the <google-securitys.com> in order to confuse internet users as to the affiliation or sponsorship of the domain name is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Next, Complainant suggests that the at-issue domain name appears to be part of a phishing scheme possibly designed to collect personal information. The domain name is one of six domain name hosted by the same IP address of which five contain the GOOGLE trademark; all are owned by the same registrant as in the instant case. Four of the GOOGLE inclusive domain names are the subject of another UDRP proceeding by the Complainant. A finding of Respondent’s involvement in a phishing scheme would indicate bad faith per se. However, while the precise intended use of the domain names is somewhat speculative, the fact that Respondent has registered multiple domain names containing Complainant’s trademark indicates a pattern of domain name abuse and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark when it registered <google-securitys.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark and the inclusion of the term “securitys” in at-issue domain name; a term suggesting services related to those services offered by Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <google-securitys.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page