Google LLC v. Ben Ghosh

Claim Number: FA2003001888606



Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brendan J Hughes of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, United States.  Respondent is Ben Ghosh (“Respondent”), Massachusetts, United States.



The domain name at issue is <> (“Domain Name”), registered with Google 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.


Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 17, 2020.


On March 19, 2020, Google LLC (as Registrar of the Domain Name) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 March 24, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 13, 2020 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  Also on March 24, 2020, 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 formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On April 2, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 formal response from Respondent.



Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant, Google LLC, has become one of the most highly recognized and widely used Internet search services in the world.  Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered Sep. 14, 2004).  Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the generic term “coronavirus” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark.


Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.  Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the <> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in order to redirect Internet users’ to its own website.


Respondent registered and uses the <> domain name in bad faith.  Respondent attempts to confuse Internet users and to attract them to its own website.  Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark when it registered the Domain Name.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding but in its informal communication agreed to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.



Respondent consents to transfer the <> domain name to Complainant.  However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Google LLC, as Registrar, placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the Domain Name while this proceeding is still pending.


In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis.  This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <> domain name.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“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 fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).



As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated:  April 3, 2020





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page