Google Inc. v. Smith Smithers
Claim Number: FA0610
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Terri Y. Chen, of Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. Respondent is Smith Smithers (“Respondent”), 5604 OJ Ave, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com>, registered with Aaaq.com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 24, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 26, 2006.
On October 27, 2006, Aaaq.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names are registered with Aaaq.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Aaaq.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Aaaq.com 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 October 31, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 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@googlevideo.com, postmaster@googlevideos.com, postmaster@googlemovie.com, postmaster@googlemovies.com, postmaster@googleforums.com, and postmaster@googlewebmaster.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 28, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Google, Inc., is the proprietor of one of the largest and most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered the GOOGLE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,884,502 issued September 14, 2004). Complainant’s filing date with the USPTO for the GOOGLE mark was September 16, 1998.
Respondent registered the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names on May 25, 2003. The disputed domain names all resolve to websites that offer links to various competing and non-competing websites.
Paragraph 15(a) of 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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the GOOGLE mark through registration with the USPTO. Although Respondent’s registration of the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names predate Complainant’s USPTO registration, Complainant’s filing date of September 16, 1998 predates Respondent’s registration. The Panel finds that Complainant’s filing date with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date); see also Thompson v. Zimmer, FA 190625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (“As Complainant’s trademark application was subsequently approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the relevant date for showing ‘rights’ in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) dates back to Complainant’s filing date.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names feature Complainant’s entire GOOGLE mark and add the generic terms “video,” “videos,” “movie,” “movies,” “forums,” or “webmaster.” The Panel finds that the addition of generic terms to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity); see also Am. Online Inc. v. Neticq.com Ltd., D2000-1606 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that the addition of the generic word “Net” to the complainant’s ICQ mark, makes the <neticq.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names. In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using its disputed domain names to resolve to websites that features links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Moreover, Complainant holds that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names nor authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in any way. In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names to operate websites that provide Internet users with links to various competing websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use constitutes a disruption of Complanant’s business and evinces bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Furthermore, Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the resulting websites. The Panel finds that such use of domain names for Respondent’s own commercial gain is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v. Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users to the respondent's website).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlevideo.com>, <googlevideos.com>, <googlemovie.com>, <googlemovies.com>, <googleforums.com>, and <googlewebmaster.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: December 7, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum