DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Alex

Claim Number: FA2506002160184

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Alex ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 11, 2025; Forum received payment on June 11, 2025.

 

On June 12, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 12, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 2025 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@youtube-plus.com, postmaster@youtube-updates.com. Also on June 12, 2025, 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 July 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's YOUTUBE mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Google LLC, holds numerous registrations for its well-known YOUTUBE mark around the world, dating back to 2006.

 

Respondent registered the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names on February 20, 2025, and March 24, 2025, respectively, and fails to make an active use of them.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the YOUTUBE mark based on registration with various authorities around the world, including the USPTO.  See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names use the YOUTUBE mark and simply add a hyphen, a generic word, and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark.  It incorporates the mark entirely.  It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's YOUTUBE mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its YOUTUBE mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Alex". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).")

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent makes no active use of the domain names. The domain names both resolve to error messages. The Panel finds that this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's failure to make an active use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. c/o kohlsdepartmentstore.com; c/o khols.com, FA 1442950 (Forum June 7, 2012) ("Respondent's failure to make an active use of the disputed domain names demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the YOUTUBE mark. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the mark, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of Complainant's rights, demonstrating further bad faith under 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

Though Complainant argues phishing based on reports, there was no example of phishing provided in Complainant's evidence. Therefore, the Panel declines to find phishing.  The Panel also notes, however, that there can be no good faith use of the famous YOUTUBE mark without Complainant's permission.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: July 5, 2025