DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Shahid Sheikh / Emitac Enterprises solutions LLC

Claim Number: FA2509002179926

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Shahid Sheikh / Emitac Enterprises solutions LLC ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <androidenterprise.com> ('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 September 30, 2025; Forum received payment on September 30, 2025.

 

On September 30, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <androidenterprise.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 October 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 21, 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@androidenterprise.com. Also on October 1, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

Forum received informal email correspondence from Respondent on October 22, 2025 offering to sell the Domain Name for "$5 Million". Following this the Complainant filed an additional submission on the same date.

 

On October 22, 2025 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 formal 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 well known mark ANDROID registered, inter alia, in India for computer hardware and software since 2010. It uses the mark ANDROID ENTERPRISE for a platform of features in the Android operating system that allows organisations to manage and secure mobile devices and apps for business use.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 points to a holding page saying that it is registered but may be available and which has a button saying "Get This Domain". The Domain Name has been offered for sale to the Complainant for "$5 Million", a sum well in excess of the costs of registration of the Domain Name which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.

 

Offering the Domain Name for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket registration costs demonstrates the Respondent's primary intention behind registering the Domain Name is to sell the Domain Name for profit and is bad faith registration and use.

 

The Respondent has also given false address details for the registration details of the Domain Name which is a further indication of bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  On October 22, 2025, Forum received an email from Respondent stating, in substance:

 

We have acknowledged your interest in the "androidenterprise.com" domain, which we have lawfully acquired via GoDaddy Auctions, and possess full ownership of the domain.

We purchased the domain as part of our domain investing program, since it's an open market we made that purchase.

 

If you'd like to acquire this domain we have put a price tag of $5 Million for the "androidenterprise.com" domain.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the well known mark ANDROID registered, inter alia, in India for computer hardware and software since 2010. It uses the mark ANDROID ENTERPRISE for a platform of features in the Android operating system that allows organisations to manage and secure mobile devices and apps for business use.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 points to a holding page which says it is registered, but may be available and has a button saying "Get This Domain". It has been offered for sale to the Complainant for "$5 Million". The Respondent has given false contact details for the registration details of the Domain Name.

 

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 in this Complaint combines the Complainant's well known ANDROID mark (registered, inter alia, in India for computer software and hardware since 2010), the generic term 'enterprise' and the gTLD .com.

 

The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). Accordingly the addition of the generic terms 'enterprise' and the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be 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 Domain Name containing the Complainant's well known mark points to a holding page saying it may be available, and has been offered for sale to the Complainant for a sum well in excess of registration costs "$5 Million" which appears to be based on the increased value due to recognition and goodwill in the Complainant's mark and therefore is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.  See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA 1602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015). 

 

The Respondent has not provided a formal response to this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panel 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 Domain Name containing the Complainant's well known ANDROID mark, and which reflects a term 'Android Enterprise' used by the Complainant for a business platform, has been offered for sale to the Complainant for a sum well in excess of costs of registration of the Domain Name.

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of sale for profit due to the value of the recognition of the Complainant's mark and its goodwill and that the Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraph 4(b)(i).

 

The Respondent has also provided false contact details for the registration details of the Domain Name. Providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration may also be evidence of respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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)(i) and (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 <androidenterprise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. 

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: October 22, 2025