Google LLC v. Ajay Krishna
Claim Number: FA2101001929455
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Ajay Krishna (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hrgoogleindia.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 23, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 23, 2021.
On January 25, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hrgoogleindia.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 January 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 16, 2021 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@hrgoogleindia.com. Also on January 26, 2021, 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 February 18, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the well-known trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia in the USA for Internet related services with registrations going back to 1999. It owns google.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE trade mark incorporating it in its entirety and adding only the generic terms ‘hr’ meaning human resources and ‘India and the gTLD “.com” which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent is using the Domain Name for an Internet phishing scam using the Complainant’s logo and references to the Complainant to obtain personal and financial information from customers looking for employment with the Complainant, and for pay per click links. These uses are not a bona fide offering of services or a noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark any use would be illegitimate. The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith and used for fraudulent purposes and for pay per click links which is registration and use in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the well-known trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia, in the USA for Internet related services with registrations going back to 1999. It owns <google.com>.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used in an Internet phishing scam and for pay per click links.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s GOOGLE mark (which is registered in, inter alia, the USA for Internet related services since 1999), the generic terms ‘hr’ meaning human resources and ‘India’, and the gTLD “.com”.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to the Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks). Adding the generic terms ‘hr’ and ‘India’ do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing attempt using the Complainant’s logo. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’.).
Use for pay per click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of .. domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s distinctive mark.
Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).).
The use of the Complainant’s logo and reference to the Complainant in the fraudulent phishing activity shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
Use for pay per click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hrgoogleindia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: February 18, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page