DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Seen Slim

Claim Number: FA2508002173443

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <youtubelabs.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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 August 25, 2025; Forum received payment on August 25, 2025.

 

On August 26, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <youtubelabs.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 August 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@youtubelabs.com. Also on August 27, 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 September 17, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <youtubelabs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's YOUTUBE mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <youtubelabs.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <youtubelabs.com> domain name 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 <youtubelabs.com> domain name on February 7, 2025, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and for 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 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 <youtubelabs.com> domain name uses the YOUTUBE mark and simply adds "labs", 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 Google LLC v. Alex, FA 2160184, (Forum July 5, 2025) ("Respondent's <youtube-plus.com> and <youtube-updates.com> use the YOUTUBE mark and simply add 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).").  The Panel similarly finds that Respondent's <youtubelabs.com> domain name 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 interest.").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <youtubelabs.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its YOUTUBE mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Seen Slim". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (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 fails to use the <youtubelabs.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant or affiliated with Complainant.  Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that passes off as a YOUTUBE website and purports to offer various YOUTUBE services. Complainant also demonstrates that the website at <youtubelabs.com> contains pay-per-click links, for example to "Etsy". The Panel finds that neither use constitutes 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 Fitness International, LLC v. Muhammad Awais Aman, FA 2111534 (Forum September 17, 2024) ("Respondent is likely using the disputed domain name, which will likely be seen as connected to Complainant, to attract and redirect web traffic to his website for Respondent's profit. Respondent admits that the website is full of ads from which Respondent obtains revenue…not a legitimate interest."); see also Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). 

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <youtubelabs.com> domain name in bad faith to divert users to pay-per-click links. The Panel therefore finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See CFA Properties, Inc. v. El Mariache/ Mariache Corp, FA 1660175 (Forum Mar. 8, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use because "Respondent used the <chickfilafoundation.org> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain because the resolving website contains links to third party businesses, from which Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <youtubelabs.com> domain name 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 name 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").

 

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 <youtubelabs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: September 18, 2025