Google Inc. v. Shalendra Chhabra
Claim Number: FA0603000669285
PARTIES
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. Respondent is Shalendra Chhabra (“Respondent”), 538 Central Way, #B101, Kirkland, WA 98033.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlepack.com>,
registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 27, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on March 30, 2006.
On March 28, 2006, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googlepack.com> domain name is
registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names
Worldwide registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 31, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of April 20, 2006 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and
persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and
billing contacts, and to postmaster@googlepack.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April
7, 2006.
Several e-mail messages sent by Respondent to Complainant and to the
Forum were received on March 31 and April 3, 2006.
On April 17, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant was created in 1997.
Since that time, Complainant has become one of the largest, most highly
recognized, and widely used Internet search services in the world. Complainant’s primary website is located at
the <www.google.com> domain name.
The GOOGLE search engine has an index of over 8 billion web pages. The GOOGLE search engine offers Internet
users an easy-to-use interface, advanced search technology, and a comprehensive
array of search tools.
Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No.
2,806,075 for the GOOGLE mark, covering search and communication services in
International Classes 38 and 42 and several additional registrations of the
GOOGLE mark for other purposes. The
GOOGLE mark and name symbolize the tremendous goodwill associated with
Complainant and are property rights of incalculable value. Furthermore, due to widespread and
substantial international use, Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and name have become
famous.
Respondent registered the <googlepack.com>
domain name on June 20, 2005. On January 9, 2006, Complainant sent
a cease and desist letter to Respondent.
No response was received. On
February 2, 2006, Complainant sent a follow up letter to Respondent. No response was received.
Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a commercial website
that displays advertisements in various “search categories” and offers a search
box. Internet users clicking on the
“search categories” or entering terms in the search box are shown ads labeled
as “sponsored search results.”
The domain name <googlepack.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in <googlepack.com>. Respondent
registered and used the <googlepack.com>
in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent denies receiving cease and desist letters or acting in bad
faith or using the domain name for financial or commercial gain. Respondent states that she has no interest
in the domain name and requests that the domain name be transferred to
Complainant.
C. Additional Submissions
Respondent sent several e-mails to the Complainant and to the Forum
restating her position that the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
FINDINGS
1.
Respondent
registered the domain name <googlepack.com>
on June 20, 2005.
2.
Complainant
demands transfer of <googlepack.com>
from Respondent to Complainant.
3.
Respondent
directs the Panel to transfer <googlepack.com>
from Respondent to Complainant.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the 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.
When Complainant makes a proper case for transfer, and Respondent fails to contest Complainant’s case and instead agrees that the proper outcome should result in the domain name being transferred from Respondent to Complainant, it becomes unnecessary to analyze each of the Policy requirements set out in Paragraph 4(a). See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (which held as follows, “In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of facts or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd.-Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (where the domain name registration was transferred on the ground that respondent stipulated to the transfer of the domain name to complainant.); see also Micro Systems, Inc. v. Walkercity, FA 444485 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2005) (which held that transfer was required when the respondent “consents to and does not object” to transfer); see also Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Harold Almon, FA 422884 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 22, 2005) (wherein it was held that no findings under Policy, Paragraph 4(a) were required and transfer was properly authorized when respondent consented to transfer of the domain name).
In the present case, Complainant demands transfer of the domain name from Respondent. Respondent answers the Complaint with the admission “I, the respondent have no interest in the domain name. Please transfer the domain name to complainant as appropriate.”
Under the facts and circumstances of this case the Panel is not required to analyze the points set out in Policy, Paragraph 4(a), and the Panel is authorized to order transfer of the domain name.
DECISION
The Respondent having requested that the domain name be transferred,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlepack.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 1, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum