Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1602001660771
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Chantal Z. Hwang of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd. (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 12, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 12, 2016.
On February 12, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> 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 February 17, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 8, 2016 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 email@example.com. Also on February 17, 2016, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 11, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Complainant uses the GMAIL mark in connection with its email and electronic messaging service. Complainant has registered the GMAIL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,150,462, registered October 3, 2006). Respondent registered the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name on July 17, 2015.
2. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the GMAIL mark as it incorporates the mark entirely and adds the generic phrase “technical support number” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.”
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name. Rather, the domain name resolves to a website in which Respondent is attempting to phish for Internet users’ information by presenting itself online as an affiliate of Complainant or Complainant’s own technical support service, and presumably selling the information gathered for profit.
4. Respondent registered and is using the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name in bad faith.
5. Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Further, Respondent had actual or constructive notice of the GMAIL mark and Complainant’s rights therein.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the GMAIL mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GMAIL mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
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."
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 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.”).
Complainant uses the GMAIL mark in connection with its email and electronic messaging service. Complainant has registered the GMAIL mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,150,462, registered October 3, 2006), which demonstrates its rights in the mark. Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the GMAIL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the GMAIL mark as it incorporates the mark entirely and adds the generic terms “technical,” “support,” and “number” and the gTLD “.net.” The addition of generic words and gTLDs are insufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Anderson, D2004-0312 (WIPO July 2, 2004) (finding the <porschesales.com> domain name to be confusingly similar where the respondent added the generic term “sales” to the complainant’s PORSCHE mark); see also Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to the complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark). The Panel therefore agrees that Respondent’s <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the GMAIL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“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.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gmailtechnicalsupportnumber.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page