Google LLC v. Abdul Razzaq Khan / Vrijesh Kumar / Joe Smith / Products / Michelle J Chang / Reading / Dennis M Ritter / sheets / Angela R Milligan / forms / Leon J Richardson / Calculator / Kristen W Randall / News / Janet J McDavid / web store / Not disclosed Not disclosed / Google Class / Google Scholar / Flights / Read / Shorts / Kumar / Amy Smith / Richard Johnson
Claim Number: FA2104001941377
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Abdul Razzaq Khan / Vrijesh Kumar / Joe Smith / Products / Michelle J Chang / Reading / Dennis M Ritter / sheets / Angela R Milligan / forms / Leon J Richardson / Calculator / Kristen W Randall / News / Janet J McDavid / web store / Not disclosed Not disclosed / Google Class / Google Scholar / Flights / Read / Shorts / Kumar / Amy Smith / Richard Johnson (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <googleassistant.org>, <googleproducts.net>, <googleread.net>, <googlesheets.net>, <googleforms.org>, <googlecalculator.com>, <googlenewsusa.com>, <googleclass.xyz>, <googlescholar.xyz>, <googleflight.xyz>, <googleread.xyz>, <googlefit.net>, <googleadmob.net>, <googlekeep.net>, <youtubeshorts.xyz>, <youtubekids.org>, and <chromewebstore.biz>, registered with Dynadot, LLC; GoDaddy.com, LLC; TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.; and Tucows Domains Inc.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 13, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 13, 2021.
On April 14, 2021; April 15, 2021, Dynadot, LLC; GoDaddy.com, LLC; TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.; and Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googleassistant.org>, <googleproducts.net>, <googleread.net>, <googlesheets.net>, <googleforms.org>, <googlecalculator.com>, <googlenewsusa.com>, <googleclass.xyz>, <googlescholar.xyz>, <googleflight.xyz>, <googleread.xyz>, <googlefit.net>, <googleadmob.net>, <googlekeep.net>, <youtubeshorts.xyz>, <youtubekids.org>, and <chromewebstore.biz> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with them, and they have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC; GoDaddy.com, LLC; TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.; and Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreements 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 20, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 10, 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@googleassistant.org, postmaster@googleproducts.net, postmaster@googleread.net, postmaster@googlesheets.net, postmaster@googleforms.org, postmaster@googlecalculator.com, postmaster@googlenewsusa.com, postmaster@googleclass.xyz, postmaster@googlescholar.xyz, postmaster@googleflight.xyz, postmaster@googleread.xyz, postmaster@googlefit.net, postmaster@googleadmob.net, postmaster@googlekeep.net, postmaster@youtubeshorts.xyz, postmaster@youtubekids.org, postmaster@chromewebstore.biz. Also on April 20, 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 May 17, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS AND DOMAIN NAMES
Complainant alleges that all of the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Domain Names resolve to web pages which are inactive, many pages indicating “can’t be reached,” others offering the name for sale, and others indicating “bad request” (Amended Complaint Exhibit D). The names and addresses of the registrants are different in many cases but Complainant alleges that the addresses furnished for many of the registrations are in fact not valid addresses. The naming convention of many of the Domain Names is identical in that the name of the registrant organization given is identical to a generic term added to Complainant’s mark in the relevant Domain Name, e.g., the registrant organization for the <googlenewsusa.com> Domain Name is “News.” The Domain Names were made registered with only four registrars, and all of the names were registered in the same time frame, September 2020 through January 2021. On these facts the Panel finds that all 17 Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity and will proceed as to all of them.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates an Internet search service and various other technology services. It has rights in the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ADMOB, and CHROME marks through its registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <googleassistant.org>, <googleproducts.net>, <googleread.net>, <googlesheets.net>, <googleforms.org>, <googlecalculator.com>, <googlenewsusa.com>, <googleclass.xyz>, <googlescholar.xyz>, <googleflight.xyz>, <googleread.xyz>, <googlefit.net>, <googleadmob.net>, <googlekeep.net>, <youtubeshorts.xyz>, <youtubekids.org>, and <chromewebstore.biz> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as they contain the marks in their entirety, merely adding generic or descriptive terms such as “assistant,” “products,” “forms” and the like, and a top-level domain (“TLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent has not been commonly known as the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. All of the Domain Names resolve to inactive websites or sites offering them for sale. Respondent has sent Complainant unsolicited emails offering some of the Domain Names for sale. Respondent’s sole purpose in registering the Domain Names was to force Complainant to buy them at prices in excess of the registration fees.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent registered and is holding the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling them to Complainant at prices exceeding the registration fees. It also registered the Domain Names, which are obviously connected with Complainant, while having no connection with Complainant. Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the YOUTUBE, GOOGLE, ADMOB and CHROME marks when it registered the Domain Names.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding but on April 20, 2021 sent an email to the Forum indicating a willingness to transfer the Domain Names to Complainant. Shortly after that, Complainant copied the Forum on its reply to Respondent. The reply included a description of a course of dealing or pattern in which Respondent’s stated willingness to transfer the Domain Names involved in this proceeding, and a number of other infringing domain names, soon transformed into an offer by Respondent to sell all of the domain names for what Respondent characterized as a discounted price. Respondent’s communication to the Forum does not conform with the requirements of Rule 5 and the Panel does not consider it as a Response. Inasmuch as Respondent’s stated willingness to transfer the Domain Names to Complainant appears to be conditioned upon Complainant paying for such transfer, the Panel will analyze the matter in accordance with the Policy.
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The GOOGLE mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,954,071) on May 24, 2005 (Amended Complaint Exhibit I). The YOUTUBE mark was registered to Google, Inc. (Reg. N3o. 3,711,233) on November 17, 2009 and subsequently assigned to Complainant (Amended Complaint Exhibit I). The ADMOB mark was registered to Admob, Inc. (Reg. No. 3,237,133 on May 1, 2007 and subsequently assigned to Complainant (Complaint Exhibit I). The CHROME mark was registered to Google, Inc. (Reg. No. 5,355,294) on December 12, 2017 and subsequently assigned to Complainant (Amended Complaint Exhibit I).[i] Complainant’s ownership of these USPTO registrations establishes its rights in the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ADMOB and CHROME marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <googleassistant.org>, <googleproducts.net>, <googleread.net>, <googlesheets.net>, <googleforms.org>, <googlecalculator.com>, <googlenewsusa.com>, <googleclass.xyz>, <googlescholar.xyz>, <googleflight.xyz>, <googleread.xyz>, <googlefit.net>, <googleadmob.net>, <googlekeep.net>, <youtubeshorts.xyz>, <youtubekids.org>, and <chromewebstore.biz> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as they contain the marks in their entirety, merely adding generic or descriptive terms such as “assistant,” “products,” “forms” and the like, and a TLD. These changes do not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy), Dansko, LLC v. zhang wu, FA 1757745 (Forum Dec. 12, 2017) (finding the <danskoshoes.us.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the DANSKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of the “.us” ccTLD and the “.com” gTLD). .”). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ADMOB and CHROME marks, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because (i) Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its marks, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the Domain Names resolve to inactive web sites, some of which offer the Domain Name for sale, and (iv) Respondent’s purpose in registering the Domain Names was to force Complainant to buy them at costs well beyond the registration fees. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that it has never authorized or permitted Respondent to use its marks. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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 furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists the persons named as Respondents in the case caption as the registrants of the Domain Names. None of these names bears any resemblance to any of the Domain Names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no response has been filed, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same), 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 Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complaint Exhibit D contains screenshots of the web sites resolving from the Domain Names. None of them displays any substantive content. Many of them state that this site “cannot be reached.” Others state only that the Domain Name corresponding to the URL for the site is for sale. Neither of these uses qualifies as a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).).
Amended Complaint Exhibit J consists of copies of unsolicited emails sent to Complainant from emails listed for some of the named Respondents in the WHOIS information furnished by the registrars. They offer some of the Domain Names for sale and attempt to persuade Complainant to pay the sums they ask, variously $1,000.00 and $300.00, rather than incur the time and expense of a UDRP proceeding to recover the names. This demonstrates that Respondent’s primary purpose in registering the Doman Names was to force Complainant to pay for them at costs well above the registration fees. UDRP panels have held that this is evidence of no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (“An attempt by a respondent to sell a domain name to a complainant who owns a trademark with which the domain name is confusingly similar for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs has been held to demonstrate a lack of legitimate rights or interests.”). Google LLC v. Jessica aukema, FA2012001923633 (Forum Jan. 8, 2021); 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017).
The evidence furnished by Complainant establishes the required prima facie case. On that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’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 the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. First, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks when it registered the Domain Names in the period between September 2020 and January 2021 (WHOIS information submitted in Amended Complaint Exhibit D shows creation dates). Complainant’s GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ADMOB and CHROME marks had been registered with the USPTO since 2009 at the latest (Complainant Exhibit I). All of the marks are well-known throughout the world (Amended Complaint Exhibits E, F, G and H). The first three of those marks are whimsical and unique in character, and Respondent copied them exactly into many of the Domain Names. Respondent’s familiarity with all 17 marks is demonstrated further by its unsolicited emails offering the Domain Names for sale. This may not fall within any of the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b), but that paragraph acknowledges that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005), Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). The nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith and registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in an incorporated mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
Second, Respondent registered and is holding the Domain Names, which fully incorporate the well-known GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, ADMOB and CHROME marks. As discussed above, however, Respondent has no connection with any of those marks or their owner, the Complainant. Again, this may not fit precisely within any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b) but given the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of opportunistic bad faith. Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”), Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama / Personal, FA 2001001879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) (“the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith.”).
Further, it is evident from the emails between Complainant and Respondent (Amended Complaint Exhibit J) that Respondent registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling them to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the names, and in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting them in corresponding domain names of its own unless, of course, it paid Respondent for the names. Respondent’s emails described above make clear that Respondent proposes to sell not only the Domain Names involved in this proceeding but other domain names which also infringe on Complainant’s intellectual property rights. The pattern of such conduct is amply demonstrated by the number of Domain Names involved in this proceeding, let alone the additional infringing domain names involved in other UDRP and usDRP cases described in the emails (Amended Complaint Exhibit J). Respondent’s conduct fits squarely within the circumstances articulated in Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(i) and (ii) and is manifest evidence of bad faith. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA1405001558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s registration of multiple domain names in the instant proceeding and prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googleassistant.org>, <googleproducts.net>, <googleread.net>, <googlesheets.net>, <googleforms.org>, <googlecalculator.com>, <googlenewsusa.com>, <googleclass.xyz>, <googlescholar.xyz>, <googleflight.xyz>, <googleread.xyz>, <googlefit.net>, <googleadmob.net>, <googlekeep.net>, <youtubeshorts.xyz>, <youtubekids.org>, and <chromewebstore.biz> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
May 19, 2021
[i] Complainant submitted no evidence of the assignment to Complainant but the Complaint explains that Complainant is still in the process of recording its entity conversion documents. That and the evidence of assignment of the YOUTUBE trademark persuades the Panel that Complainant is in fact the owner of the CHROME mark.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page