DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Raju gujar

Claim Number: FA2509002179950

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Raju gujar ("Respondent"), United Arab Emirates.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <yooyoutube.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 30, 2025; Forum received payment on September 30, 2025.

 

On October 1, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <yooyoutube.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 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 22, 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@yooyoutube.com. 

 

Also on October 2, 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 October 23, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the YOUTUBE trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark on its video and downloading platform YouTube.

 

Complainant submits that YouTube, is one of the most visited websites globally. As of February 21, 2025, <www.youtube.com> was ranked as the second most viewed website in the world according to Exploding Topic. Also Hostinger reports that YOUTUBE ranks among the top ten most visited websites in numerous countries.

 

Complainant submits that the reach of its platform is extensive, with localized versions in over 100 countries and support for 80 languages, making it accessible to more than 95% of the world's Internet users. The platform is especially dominant among users aged 18–34 and 35–49 in the United States, surpassing all television networks in reach—even on mobile alone.

 

The scale of user engagement is staggering with over 100 million comments posted daily, approximately 3.5 billion "likes" given per day, more than 20 million videos uploaded daily as of April 2025.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its YOUTUBE mark, because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, preceded by the descriptive term "yoo" and followed by the <.com> Top-Level Domain extension. 

 

Complainant argues that the structure of the disputed domain name renders it confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Further, Complainant submits that WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 §1.7 supports a finding of confusing similarity when website content trades off the complainant's reputation.

 

In Google LLC v. Waqar Ahmad / CloudFort Technology and Consultancy, FA2406002102752 (Forum July 12, 2024), the panel found confusing similarity based on the website's content and branding.

 

Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that

·       Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the YOUTUBE mark, and such unauthorized use of a third-party trademark in a domain name is strong evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interest, see Time Warner Inc. v. MLM Capital LLC, FA0709001076561, where unauthorized use of a trademark in a domain name was found to lack legitimacy;

·       the WhoIs records do not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the name YOUTUBE, citing  Popular Enterprises, LLC v. Sung-a Jang, FA0610000811921, where the WHOIS information did not suggest Respondent was known by the domain name;

·       the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves illustrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website that purports to impersonate Complainant, mimic its layout and branding, and monetizes traffic through click-through advertising;

·        Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and panels established under the Policy have consistently rejected such use as legitimate: see for example Google LLC v. Seen Slim, FA2508002173443, where the domain <youtubelabs.com> was used to pass off as a YOUTUBE website and contained pay-per-click links.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite being on notice of Complainant's strong trademark rights.

 

Complainant's trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain by over a decade.

 

Complainant contends that the fame and distinctive quality of the YOUTUBE mark which was adopted and registered long before the disputed domain name was created, supports this conclusion.

 

Complainant further asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, intending to exploit the goodwill associated with the YOUTUBE mark.

 

The screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name within the address of its website to offer services that compete with Complainant's offering.

 

Specifically, Respondent's website purports to offer competing commercial video sharing and live streaming platform. Respondent's website copied the layout, color scheme, and trade dress of Complainant's YouTube website.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's website has been monetized to profit from the misdirection of Internet users caused by the similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant's YOUTUBE mark.

 

It is further contended that Respondent's willful intent to violate Complainant's intellectual property rights by using the disputed domain name that fully incorporates the YOUTUBE mark to resolve to Respondent's website that leverages Complainant's goodwill constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns and operates the video-sharing and broadcasting platform YouTube, and is the owner of an international portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations for the YOUTUBE mark including:

·       European Union Trade Mark (EUTM), YOUTUBE, registration number 005226964, registered on July 3, 2008 for services in classes 35, 38, 41, 41.

·       United Kingdom registered Trade Mark YOUTUBE, registration number 2442047, on December 19, 2006 for services in class 38 and 41;

·       United States registered trademark and service mark YOUTUBE, registration number 3,525,802, registered on the Principal Register on October 28, 2008 for goods and services in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its YouTube platform and its principal website at <www.youtube.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <yooyoutube.com> was registered on October 5, 2018, and resolves to a purported competing commercial video sharing and live streaming platform with the look and feel of Complainant's YouTube platform.

 

There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name, and the Registrar's response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of this proceeding.

 

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

Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the YOUTUBE trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the abovementioned registrations and extensive use of the mark on and in relation to its famous YouTube platform.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates the YOUTUBE mark in its entirety, preceded by the descriptive term "yoo" and followed by the generic Top Level Domain ("Gtld" extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that it is strong evidence of confusing similarity when a domain name at issue incorporates a complainant's trademark in its entirety.

 

In the present case the element "yoo" adds no distinguishing character to the disputed domain name and the gTLD extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the YOUTUBE mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has provided convincing uncontested evidence that it YOUTUBE mark is one of the most recognizable marks in the world.

 

As Complainant has argued the scale of user engagement with its platform is staggering with over 100 million comments posted daily, approximately 3.5 billion "likes" given per day, more than 20 million videos uploaded daily as of April 2025

 

It is therefore improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

 

On the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the YOUTUBE mark and its eponymous YouTube platform.

 

The uncontested evidence, in the form of a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, shows that the disputed domain name is being used as the address of a competing commercial video sharing and live streaming platform. It has the look and feel of Complainant's platform.

 

Respondent's use of the YOUTUBE mark within the disputed domain name is clearly intended to attract and misdirect the traffic of Internet users seeking Complainant's services to those purported to be offered by Respondent.

 

The Panel finds therefore that by using the disputed domain name in this manner, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website or location and the products and services purported to be offered on Respondent's website. Such use constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <yooyoutube.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: October 24, 2025