DECISION

 

Groq, Inc. v. Josh Wilson

Claim Number: FA2312002074503

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Groq, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Josh Wilson ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <groq.world>, ('the Domain Name') registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 8, 2023; Forum received payment on December 8, 2023.

 

On December 11, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <groq.world> 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 December 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2024 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@groq.world. Also on December 13, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On January 3, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GROQ, registered, inter alia, in the USA for software with first use recorded as 2017.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 is legally identical to the Complainant's mark, wholly incorporating it and adding only the gTLD .world.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant's mark and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used for a site which impersonates the Complainant's web site, using the Complainant's mark in logo form as a masthead. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

 

The Respondent registered the Domain Name and directed it to a site that used the Complainant's logo as a masthead to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name were associated with the Complainant to deceive Internet users. The mimicking of the Complainant shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. The Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith to cause confusion for commercial gain and to disrupt the Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GROQ, registered, inter alia, in the USA for software with first use recorded as 2017.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 pointed to a site that impersonated the Complainant using the Complainant's logo as a masthead. It currently points to commercial pay per click links.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's GROQ mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for software with first use being 2017), and the gTLD .world.

 

The gTLD .world does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 identical to the Complainant's registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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 Respondent's site used the Complainant's GROQ mark in its logo form as a masthead appearing to be an official site of the Complainant. It was not clear that there was no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it does not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The use was commercial so was not legitimate non commercial or fair use.  

 

The Respondent currently uses the Domain Name for commercial pay per click links. Use for commercial competing pay per click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial 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.").

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

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

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's mark in logo form as a masthead and subsequently used it to offer commercial services not connected with the Complainant via pay per click links. The use of the Complainant's logo shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a 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 Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). See Health Republic Insurance Company v Above.comLegal, FA 1622088, (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 para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <groq.world> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: January 3, 2024