DECISION

 

Google LLC v. GoogleAds Wala

Claim Number: FA2601002200716

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is GoogleAds Wala ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <googleadswala.com> ("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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026.

 

On January 20, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <googleadswala.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 January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026 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@googleadswala.com. Also on January 21, 2026, 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 February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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

Complainant, amongst other services, operates the Google search engine which has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. As part of its Google search engine services Complainant offers advertising opportunities and provides assistance to companies seeking to advertise with it. Complainant asserts rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered September 14, 2004). The <googleadswala.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the Domain Name incorporates the GOOGLE mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive terms "ads" and "wala" (a term in Hindi that describes "one who possesses" or "one who does") as well as the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <googleadswala.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of Complainant's GOOGLE mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for either a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses the Domain Name to resolve to a website ("Respondent's Website") that purports to offer marketing and Google Ads reselling services under the GOOGLE mark, indicating that Respondent is passing off as Complainant or associated with Complainant which is not the case.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <googleadswala.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract visitors for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Given the use of the Respondent's Website to offer services under the Complainant's GOOGLE mark, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GOOGLE mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the GOOGLE mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used of the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered September 14, 2004). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).

 

The Panel finds that the <googleadswala.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark as it wholly incorporates the GOOGLE mark and adds the generic or descriptive terms "ads" and "wala" and the ".com" gTLD.  The addition of generic terms along with a gTLD to a wholly incorporated trademark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

The WHOIS information of record lists "GoogleAds Wala" as the registrants of record. However, there is no affirmative evidence that the Respondent is actually commonly known under the GoogleAds Wala name (as opposed to simply registering the Domain Name under a false name for the purpose of asserting rights or legitimate interests). Even if a respondent appears from the WHOIS record to be known by the domain name, without additional affirmative evidence, it can be concluded that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google Inc. v. S S / Google International, FA 1625742 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) ("Respondent did identify itself as 'Google International' in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and this is reflected in the WHOIS information. However, Respondent has not provided affirmative evidence from which the Panel can conclude that Respondent was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name before Respondent's registration thereof."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. HP Supplies, FA 282387 (Forum July 22, 2004) ("The Panel finds, because of the prominence of the HP mark, that Respondent's registration under the 'HP Supplies' name does not establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <hpsupplies.com> domain name."). Given the lack of evidence that the Respondent is actually known under a name corresponding to the Domain Name, and Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website which purports to offer services to assist businesses in marketing with the Complainant (including the resale of Google ads), which compete with the services offered by the Complainant (which also provides assistance to businesses seeking to use their services). It does so while reproducing Complainant's GOOGLE mark. It is therefore necessary to consider the question of fair use.

 

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") at sections 2.4 and 2.5, looks at the question of how fair use is assessed under the Policy. The first point as noted at section 2.5 is that a domain name should not falsely suggest affiliation with the trademark owner, and there is a range of examples provided.  2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 sets out circumstances that panels have considered in determining whether the use of a domain name is fair. At 2.5.2. the WIPO Overview 3.0 states:

 

"To facilitate this assessment, panels have found the following factors illustrative: (i) whether the domain name has been registered and is being used for legitimate purposes and not as a pretext for commercial gain or other such purposes inhering to the respondent's benefit, (ii) whether the respondent reasonably believes its use (whether referential, or for praise or criticism) to be truthful and well-founded, (iii) whether it is clear to Internet users visiting the respondent's website that it is not operated by the complainant, (iv) whether the respondent has refrained from engaging in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to marks held by the complainant or third parties, (v) where appropriate, whether a prominent link (including with explanatory text) is provided to the relevant trademark owner's website, (vi) whether senders of email intended for the complainant but (because of user confusion) directed to the respondent are alerted that their message has been misdirected, (vii) whether there is an actual connection between the complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name and the corresponding website content, and not to a competitor, or an entire industry, group, or individual, and (viii) whether the domain name registration and use by the respondent is consistent with a pattern of bona fide activity (whether online or offline)."

 

The Panel also notes the decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc,  D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2021), in which the respondent was a reseller of the complainant's OKIDATA products.  The respondent registered and used the domain name <okidataparts.com> in connection with that business.  The panel in that case concluded that this use could be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy if the following conditions were satisfied: 

·   The respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue,

·   The respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods),

·   The site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner, and

·   The respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

 

Other panels have concluded that applying the nominative fair use doctrine could also be appropriate in cases other than those involving a reseller of branded parts, provided that the respondent operated a business genuinely revolving around the trademark owner's goods or services, see National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection/The Racin' Connection, Inc.,  D2007-1524 (WIPO Jan. 28, 2008) and YETI Coolers, LLC v. Ryley Lyon / Ditec Solutions LLC. FA 1675141 (Forum July 11, 2016). The Oki Data test has also been applied for registrants offering repair services, see General Motors LLC v. Flashcraft, Inc DBA Cad Company D2011-2117 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2012)

 

In the present case, the Panel is not satisfied by the evidence before it, that the Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods and services or a fair use of the Domain Name and hence Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  The Respondent's Website does not accurately disclose the Respondent's relationship (in this case a complete absence of a relationship) with the Complainant. Rather than stating that the Respondent's marketing and Google Ads reselling services are offered by a third party unconnected to the Complainant, the absence of a disclaimer, or reference to any entity other than the Complainant and the prominent expression that the services are offered by "GOOGLE ADS WALA", provides the false impression that the services offered under the Respondent's Website are offered by or are authorized or associated with the Complainant, which is not the case.  Finally, the nature of the Domain Name, which simply includes the name of the Complainant's product and the possessive "wala", implies that the Respondent is perhaps an official Complainant reseller, rather than a third party providing unauthorized services in connection with the Complainant's Google ads ecosystem.  As such, notwithstanding that Respondent may offer marketing services relevant to Complainant's services from the Respondent's Website, this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶  4(c)(iii).  See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). 

See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). 

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (December 27, 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's GOOGLE mark since the Complainant has a significant reputation in the GOOGLE mark and Respondent purports to offer competing services and the Respondent's Website makes reference to the Complainant and its advertising services. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's GOOGLE mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers services (being marketing services and resold Google Ads services) in competition with Complainant and seeks to mislead consumers by asserting (through the name "Google Ads Wala") that the Respondent and Respondent's Website is in some way connected to Complainant.  The use of a disputed domain name to mislead users and redirect them to a competing website may indicate bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).  See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).  

 

The Panel finds 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 <googleadswala.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated:  February 11, 2026